# Pardon backfire....



## Kraut783 (Jan 26, 2017)

*Murder of man recently pardoned by Obama*

Surveillance video shows murder of man recently pardoned by Obama

Thomas was a former Sunny Side Gang member, according to Michigan State Police spokesperson Lt. David Kaiser. He was busted in one of the biggest drug busts in Saginaw, known as “Operation Sunset.”

In 2008, he was sentenced to 19 years in prison for the distribution of five grams or more of cocaine. The operation effectively ended the Sunny Side Gang.

Thomas was among the 79 people pardoned on Nov. 22 by former President Obama.

Ah, happy ending


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 26, 2017)

I thought this was going to be about Manning calling out the President.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 26, 2017)

So why exactly was this guy pardoned?  Were they just drawing names from a hat until they reached the magic number?


----------



## AWP (Jan 26, 2017)

Think of the felonies I could commit had I known that many pardons were available.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 27, 2017)

I think the former POTUS was trying to push back against the Regan era mandatory minimums. Thought people targeted for pardon were those with convictions based on drug possession.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> So why exactly was this guy pardoned?  Were they just drawing names from a hat until they reached the magic number?


Don't know why, but considering this guy's prior record and amount of crack he was selling (less than 15 grams), apparently 20 years was a bit heavy?


----------



## Grunt (Jan 28, 2017)

I think many of them -- if not most -- are simply "hail Mary" passes and are made without any rhyme or reason. After all, the prisoner has nothing to lose by asking and everything to gain...so why not.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 28, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Don't know why, but considering this guy's prior record and amount of crack he was selling (less than 15 grams), apparently 20 years was a bit heavy?



Considering eight years later he was tracked down and killed....I'm sure the charge he was arrested for was just the tip of what he was involved in.

And...if he was killed for giving information and being a snitch...he didn't get much of a deal at his sentencing.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Considering eight years later he was tracked down and killed....I'm sure the charge he was arrested for was just the tip of what he was involved in.
> 
> And...if he was killed for giving information and being a snitch...he didn't get much of a deal.


Is your point here, "He shouldn't have been pardoned, I am glad he was killed when he got out?" Kinda seems like it.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 28, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Considering eight years later he was tracked down and killed....I'm sure the charge he was arrested for was just the tip of what he was involved in.
> 
> And...if he was killed for giving information and being a snitch...he didn't get much of a deal at his sentencing.





amlove21 said:


> Is your point here, "He shouldn't have been pardoned, I am glad he was killed when he got out?" Kinda seems like it.



I can't speak to @Kraut783's line of thinking, but I did not get the gist that he was glad the deceased met his end.  I, personally, don't find any joy in the outcome, either.  However, wouldn't you agree that >15g of crack cocaine is an awfully small quantity for someone to hold an eight-year grudge over?  Especially to the point of ordering and executing a hit on him before he'd even been out of prison for a whole 90 days?  

I'd be willing to bet that he was involved in more than just buying a recreational amount of the stuff; however, with the help of a skilled attorney and errors on the part of the prosecution and law enforcement, the possession charge was all that would stick.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> I can't speak to @Kraut783's line of thinking, but I did not get the gist that he was glad the deceased met his end.  I, personally, don't find any joy in the outcome, either.  However, wouldn't you agree that >15g of crack cocaine is an awfully small quantity for someone to hold an eight-year grudge over?  Especially to the point of ordering and executing a hit on him before he'd even been out of prison for a whole 90 days?
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that he was involved in more than just buying a recreational amount of the stuff; however, with the help of a skilled attorney and errors on the part of the prosecution and law enforcement, the possession charge was all that would stick.


You mean <15g of crack?

Was he involved in more, heinous crap? Who knows. Does the phrase "Play stupid games/win stupid prizes" play here? I guess. I just don't really sign on to the "justice was served because this guy was murdered after our justice system saw fit to release him" thing.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 28, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> You mean <15g of crack?
> 
> Was he involved in more, heinous crap? Who knows. Does the phrase "Play stupid games/win stupid prizes" play here? I guess. I just don't really sign on to the "justice was served because this guy was murdered after our justice system saw fit to release him" thing.



Pardon my typo.  And you would be the only one reaching that conclusion.  There's no justice served in streetside executions.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Pardon my typo.  And you would be the only one reaching that conclusion.  There's no justice served in streetside executions.


No, I totally agree. That's why I was asking @Kraut783 to clarify what he meant by this-


Kraut783 said:


> Ah, happy ending


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 28, 2017)

While I do not support streetside justice.  This person picked the life where streetside justice is the way of life. As I said...for him to be tracked down after so long and taken out like he was...more was going on.  Just like the mafia, once in...never out.  

Maybe I should have said "Ah, the irony "


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> While I do not support streetside justice.  This person picked the life where streetside justice is the way of life. As I said...for him to be tracked down after so long and taken out like he was...more was going on.  Just like the mafia, once in...never out.
> 
> Maybe I should have said "Ah, the irony "


Yeah maybe.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 28, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Yeah maybe.



Why do you disagree so strongly with the original comment?


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> Why do you disagree so strongly with the original comment?




Well, I wanted to clarify what @Kraut783 meant, and he said he meant to say "ironic" as a description of the event. Rather, he said "maybe that was a better way to put it. 

It was much more some questions for clarification, just to make sure I understood what the point was. I didn't say I agreed/disagreed with anything, and certainly not strongly. Unless you want to count me saying, "_I just don't really sign on to the "justice was served because this guy was murdered after our justice system saw fit to release him" thing." _as a strong disagreement.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 28, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Well, I wanted to clarify what @Kraut783 meant, and he said he meant to say "ironic" as a description of the event. Rather, he said "maybe that was a better way to put it.
> 
> It was much more some questions for clarification, just to make sure I understood what the point was. I didn't say I agreed/disagreed with anything, and certainly not strongly. Unless you want to count me saying, "_I just don't really sign on to the "justice was served because this guy was murdered after our justice system saw fit to release him" thing." _as a strong disagreement.



Ah ok. Good to clarify.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 28, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Don't know why, but considering this guy's prior record and amount of crack he was selling (less than 15 grams), apparently 20 years was a bit heavy?


So, I'm not interested in turning this into a lengthy debate, because truth is I don’t care that much, but where did you see info about his prior record?

In the article, and I didn't look anywhere else for the aforementioned reason, it only stated that he was convicted in 2008 of distribution of _more_ than 5 grams of cocaine.  No mention of priors or other circumstances except that his arrest evidently helped in the demise of some gang.

Makes me wonder how these pardons are dished out.   Tough to imagine how this ding-dong's name comes across Obama's desk.   And a pardon is different than simply an early release...or at least it's supposed to be.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> So, I'm not interested in turning this into a lengthy debate, because truth is I don’t care that much, but where did you see info about his prior record?
> 
> In the article, and I didn't look anywhere else for the aforementioned reason, it only stated that he was convicted in 2008 of distribution of _more_ than 5 grams of cocaine.  No mention of priors or other circumstances except that his arrest evidently helped in the demise of some gang.
> 
> Makes me wonder how these pardons are dished out.   Tough to imagine how this ding-dong's name comes across Obama's desk.   And a pardon is different than simply an early release...or at least it's supposed to be.


No worries, I am not all about it either.

Here is an article containing his priors- granted, he's no angel, and he'd never seen jail time before, but he 100% had distributed cocaine. One conviction for use and 2 probation charges. When he pled for the crack conviction (less than 15 grams, 14.88) he got 21 years.

As for the pardons, it's my understanding that it's basically a legal application process- send in a request to the President, he/his staff reviews it and may or may not grant clemency or a pardon after examining the facts. To be clear, Obama didn't pardon him, he commuted his sentence.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 29, 2017)

People are focusing on things like "first offense" and "non-violent crime," but they forget that the first time someone is caught on something is usually not the first time they did it, and you get bad guys on what you can get them on.  Al Capone got put in prison for tax evasion.  That's almost as "non-violent" as they come.  I wonder why he didn't get pardoned? /rhetorical


----------



## Grunt (Jan 29, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> People are focusing on things like "first offense" and "non-violent crime," but they forget that the first time someone is caught on something is usually not the first time they did it, and you get bad guys on what you can get them on.  Al Capone got put in prison for tax evasion.  That's almost as "non-violent" as they come.  I wonder why he didn't get pardoned? /rhetorical



In addition, many of their sentences are a result of plea bargaining down -- not only in severity of the initial crime, but also the counts or number of charges.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> People are focusing on things like "first offense" and "non-violent crime," but they forget that the first time someone is caught on something is usually not the first time they did it, and you get bad guys on what you can get them on.  Al Capone got put in prison for tax evasion.  That's almost as "non-violent" as they come.  I wonder why he didn't get pardoned? /rhetorical


When you say "people", do you mean the administration that's granting the shorter sentence? And with all the effort it would take to examine the "real truth" (was this the first time they did it, or the first time they got caught? Are they actually bad people? Was the sentence correctly applied), do you think that Presidents should be able to commute sentences at all?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> When you say "people", do you mean the administration that's granting the shorter sentence? And with all the effort it would take to examine the "real truth" (was this the first time they did it, or the first time they got caught? Are they actually bad people? Was the sentence correctly applied), do you think that Presidents should be able to commute sentences at all?



When I say "people" I mean "people," I don't know how to make it clearer than that.  People in the administration.  People in this thread.  People in concerned about justice issues.  People.

The judicial system is designed to examine the 'real truth.'  It includes appeals processes in case the system got it wrong the first time.  And there's always the Supreme Court.

I'm ambivalent about the President's ability to grant pardons and commute sentences.  I think it runs counter to the separation of powers and checks and balances in our form of government, but since it's a power specifically granted to the President, I'm OK with it.

The relatively high number of commutations and pardons by President Obama to me smacked of racial pandering more than it did of righting a legitimate wrong.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> When I say "people" I mean "people," I don't know how to make it clearer than that.  People in the administration.  People in this thread.  People in concerned about justice issues.  People.
> 
> The judicial system is designed to examine the 'real truth.'  It includes appeals processes in case the system got it wrong the first time.  And there's always the Supreme Court.
> 
> ...


I think that's where my thought process is evolving on this one, that's why I was asking whom you meant. I understand now you mean all people. 

The more I see commuted sentences and pardons, the less I am sure that it needs to be a presidential power. I don't know the process well enough to guess at how much each president knows about each exact case- but I will go ahead and assume that Pres Obama didn't have intimate knowledge of the 78 pardons and 153 sentence commutations he made in December.


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 29, 2017)

Until I watched West Wing, this year, I knew jack shit about presidential pardons, and I thought for years that they were an extremely rare occurrence. This is an avenue that can and should have much greater transparency than is already put forth.



Marauder06 said:


> I'm ambivalent about the President's ability to grant pardons and commute sentences.  I think it runs counter to the separation of powers and checks and balances in our form of government, but since it's a power specifically granted to the President, I'm OK with it.



In reference to this, I agree with you, but for different reasons. In a vast simplification that everyone pretty much knows, the Executive Branch and its constitutional head, the President is there to enforce the law. The courts by extension work to apply the law so that it may be enforced fairly but are restrained in their ability by what laws are currently on the books. So the system works for the majority, but screws a small number harshly. In my opinion, presidential pardons and computations should exist for those extenuating circumstances that were overlooked due to technicalities or mandatory minimums that hinder the ability of judges to expertly and fairly apply the law. In this way, presidential pardons should be used to benevolently fix situations that were screwed by the system and should therefore fall under the purview of the president in application as he is the constitutional head of the executive branch. However, I do believe that the President should be required to provide the reasons for any said pardon not only for transparency purposes but for the purpose of letting the people know what problems there are in the legal system that could be changed as judges are usually constrained from shouting out "hey voters, this law sucks and keeps me from doing my job, tell your congressman".


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 29, 2017)

If the President is there to enforce the law, then he's not there to interpret or apply it.   And that's what's doing with his power to pardon/commute.  

Part of the problem with presidential pardon powers is that they can be applied pre-emptively.  For example, if he wanted to, President Obama could have pardoned Bowe Bergdahl.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I think that's where my thought process is evolving on this one, that's why I was asking whom you meant. I understand now you mean all people.
> 
> The more I see commuted sentences and pardons, the less I am sure that it needs to be a presidential power. I don't know the process well enough to guess at how much each president knows about each exact case- but I will go ahead and assume that Pres Obama didn't have intimate knowledge of the 78 pardons and 153 sentence commutations he made in December.



Yeah, apparently he holds the record for most use of that power.



> Eggleston said Obama has now pardoned a total of 148 people during his presidency and has shortened the sentences of 1,176 people, including 395 serving life sentences.



Nearly 400 people sentenced to life, out on the streets.  Typically, one does not get a life sentence for "low-level drug offenses."


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 29, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> If the President is there to enforce the law, then he's not there to interpret or apply it.   And that's what's doing with his power to pardon/commute.
> 
> Part of the problem with presidential pardon powers is that they can be applied pre-emptively.  For example, if he wanted to, President Obama could have pardoned Bowe Bergdahl.



I meant apply/enforce as interchangeable probably wrongly, but I see your point. I would counter that without explicit direction or highly detailed law, there is a need to interpret a law in order to enforce it which provides a little leeway to the President. Other than because the constitution gives him the power of pardon, what justification is there for a pardon power? I mean because it's in the constitution is a solid reason, but why is it there, what was its intended use, and what is its proper place/usage in present and future society? I'd say the ability to alleviate punishments that are applied unfairly to very small number are a quality present usage and could be improved for the future with a legal reasoning requirement. With respect to pre-emptive pardons, I was unaware that they were an option until later this year, but I believe that's where a transparency requirement with legal reasoning would be beneficial and act to constrain presidents from pardoning someone because it follows their agenda.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 29, 2017)

A lot more people wouldn't be so quick to fall on their sword if they weren't going to get the pardon down the road. 

I think it should have a court or hearing type recomendations process. Some type of review and recommendations board of sorts. I'm not really sure if one already exists or not. But the POTUS shouldn't just be able to pardon without some significant checks and balances throughout the process.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Yeah, apparently he holds the record for most use of that power.
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 400 people sentenced to life, out on the streets.  Typically, one does not get a life sentence for "low-level drug offenses."


And this post is an excellent example of where I have gotten to at this point. Why are we pardoning people again? Why is this a thing?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> And this post is an excellent example of where I have gotten to at this point. Why are we pardoning people again? Why is this a thing?



My fledgling opinion during the Bush 41 years was that it was an option given to the president to correct a legal wrong, as a check against the judicial, or to give a second chance to the truly penetent. After our 42nd POTUS, I saw it as more of a political favor. None have held office since that have swayed that opinion. I think that has more to do with the degradation of the political class as a whole than as a constitutional mistake.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> My fledgling opinion during the Bush 41 years was that it was an option given to the president to correct a legal wrong, as a check against the judicial, or to give a second chance to the truly penetent. After our 42nd POTUS, I saw it as more of a political favor. None have held office since that have swayed that opinion. I think that has more to do with the degradation of the political class as a whole than as a constitutional mistake.


Well put.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 30, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> My fledgling opinion during the Bush 41 years was that it was an option given to the president to correct a legal wrong, as a check against the judicial, or to give a second chance to the truly penetent. After our 42nd POTUS, I saw it as more of a political favor. None have held office since that have swayed that opinion. I think that has more to do with the degradation of the political class as a whole than as a constitutional mistake.


Concur.  While this privilege is actually written into the Constitution, it seemingly has become yet another example of political fuckery.  In the larger scheme of things, there may be more validity to the process than there appears, but perception is often reality and this privilege has a bad image problem.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 30, 2017)

I wonder how much the Counsel's office spent on any one of these cases.  Probably not a lot since they have to fight lawsuits and keep the staff from saying lies under oath by accident on the daily.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Feb 7, 2017)

Late to this thread, as usual, but here it goes: it has to do with the conspiracy to distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine) and lengthy sentencing of minorities in the federal system.  I won't bore anyone with specifics but if you are interested, there are a ton of peer reviewed works out there. 

Now lets ask ourselves why Rod Blagojevich is still serving 14 years in a BOP facility.  Oh wait, who was the last president...


----------



## Gunz (Feb 7, 2017)

I thought this thread was about farts.


----------

