Bush43 Muffs Pardons!

A pardon is a gift. It is unearned. It is done out of the beneficence of the state. It was meant as an executive brake on the judiciary. One of the checks and balances. Once a pardon is made it cannot to be recalled. (That’s my opinion). The rule on gifts is this: A gift is the legal transfer of a thing of value from one person to another. A gift is completed by the simultaneous 1) intent of the donor to make the gift and the 2) proper conveyance of the gift. When both conditions are met, the gift is complete. Once a gift is complete, the donor (maker) has no claim on the property (or thing of value) that was given.

This raises the question “what is a ‘thing of value’ when it relates to a pardon?” Which is to beg, when does a PARDON become effective? Is it ethereal or is it real? Must one who has been pardoned necessarily carry and produce the actual pardon for it to be effective? Or will the fact be generally broadcast so all can know and honor it? Would a pardon be any less effective if a person - any person - did not know of its existence?

Suppose a man is about to be hanged. Suppose the president (or governor) signs the pardon of the man for the crime for which he is about to pay. Suppose the news of the pardon reaches the hangman a minute BEFORE he is to pull the lever dropping the man to his trip to eternity. The Warden yells “Stop the hanging!” The hangman refuses saying, “Not unless I can see and touch the paper the president signed!” The hangman pulls the lever. The man departs this realm. Has the hangman committed a crime?

I’m thinking explicitly about the case announced today where Pres. Bush first pardoned Isaac Toussie, a man convicted of economic crimes against HUD. White House press secretary Dana Perino said the new decision was "based on information that has subsequently come to light," including on the extent and nature of Toussie's prior criminal offenses. She also said that neither the White House counsel's office nor the president had been aware of a political contribution by Toussie's father that "might create an appearance of impropriety." To me, this is as if he, Bush43, could take back a burp! www.freerepublic.com...

Does this mean Bush43 will say good-by to Lewis ‘Scooter’ Liddy for his 4 felony convictions in a court of law, albeit Liddy knows things that could bring both Bush43 and VP Cheney to much grief! Him Liddy being merely the stooge for the dirty work of the former two. Bush43 of course, being so much concerned pardoning Liddy "might create an appearance of impropriety . . “

Could a person be pardoned if he is unaware of it? Is the beneficiary’s consent to be pardoned necessary for the pardon to become effective? The current batch of pardons includes one for a man now dead on to 90 years. He is obviously neither aware of it nor can we ever know his feelings about if any he has. From that I take it for the pardon to be effective does not require either the knowledge of or the approval (or consent) of the person being pardoned.

See the Nixon Pardon for reference.

Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
www.watergate.info...

I ask you TWO questions. 1) Do you agree the Pardon of Nixon by Gerald Ford was effective upon the signing of the document by Gerald Ford?

And 2) Upon discovering this pardon of Nixon was likely to casus him to lose the presidency in 1976, could Ford have rescinded the pardon?

[edit on 12/25/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
A pardon is a gift. It is unearned. It is done out of the beneficence of the state. It was meant as an executive brake on the judiciary. One of the checks and balances. Once a pardon is made it cannot to be recalled. (That’s my opinion). The rule on gifts is this: A gift is the legal transfer of a thing of value from one person to another. A gift is completed by the simultaneous 1) intent of the donor to make the gift and the 2) proper conveyance of the gift. When both conditions are met, the gift is complete. Once a gift is complete, the donor (maker) has no claim on the property (or thing of value) that was given.


[edit on 12/25/2008 by donwhite]

I do not think that a pardon fits the common law definition of a gift. A gift involves the transfer of a piece of property. A pardon is an act and not a piece of property.

A pardon has none of the characteristics of land, cash, securities, and other items that the law considers property. A pardon cannot be transferred to another person. Even though many people may effectively "buy" pardons buy donating to campaigns, the law is not going to recognize that pardons can be bought or sold like other forms of property.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

I do not think that a pardon fits the common law definition of a gift. A gift involves the transfer of a piece of property. A pardon is an act and not a piece of property. A pardon has none of the characteristics of land, cash, securities, and other items that the law considers property. A pardon cannot be transferred to another person. Even though many people may effectively "buy" pardons buy donating to campaigns, the law is not going to recognize that pardons can be bought or sold like other forms of property.

I must agree with your explanation completely! I concur it is not a gift. However I am not deterred in thinking that a pardon cannot be undone, withdrawn, revoked or reclaimed.

Here I rely on the words in the Nixon pardon - I am assunming the operative words are the same in all pardons - “Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States . . "

Once the pardon is signed, it is final and irrevocable. IMO.

This may be very similar to the question, "Can a president (or governor) pardon himself?"

To which I answer NO.

[edit on 12/25/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


More on the Isaac Toussie pardon.

First. The presidential power of pardon is meant to be one of the checks and balances between the three branches of the government. It was meant to allow for the correction of a miscarriage of justice by the judiciary system.

Second. Keep in mind we are dealing with criminals. Each person seeking a pardon has had his day in court, has been found guilty by a jury of his peers, sentenced and exhausted his appeals and is now serving time in the Federal penitentiary system. Well most of them.

The power of pardon is “accepted” to include lesser powers, such as the power of commutation. This is the power Pres. Bush exercised quickly after his Spacial Assistant Lewis Scooter Liddy was convicted on 4 counts of perjury and sentenced to 7 years in the Federal pen.

Because we anti-Bush/Cheney types believe Liddy was carrying out decision reached by the twin terrors, Bush43 and VP Cheney, Bush43 had to PREVENT the imprisonment of Liddy. This same thing happened to the father - Bush Sr - when he had to pardon Casper Weinberg to avoid himself gong to the pen. For lying about his leading role the Iran Contra debacle. It runs in the family. Will Bush43 grant a FULL pardon to the perjurer Liddy? We’ll see.

I hold to the position any pardon once made final by the signature of the president - what do you call it before then? - the proposed pardon? - cannot be recalled, revoked, rescinded or cancelled. Why do I say that? Well, look at the wording from the Nixon pardon - again, I assume this is the language used in all presidential pardons - which read in part as follows “ . . by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto . . “ The operative words must be these three: FULL, FREE, and ABSOLUTE. The world ABSOLUTE is without limit. It is complete.

If any presidential pardon is revocable then as I offered above President Ford might reasonably have concluded that because of that pardon he was going to lose the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter, he could have REVOKED the pardon, if you accept the White House logic.

Then any presidential PARDON would hot be FULL nor would it be ABSOLUTE. Henceforth pardons would be conditional and subject to presidential review. So what would a pardon be worth then?

It would make any pardon more like the one Clinton gave to Marc Rich. The Clinton pardon provided that he, Rich, must submit to civil jurisdiction so that claimants could sue him to recover the money they said he had defrauded them of. As of today, it appears Mr. Rich has NOT so submitted and therefore he is NOT yet pardoned.

[edit on 12/26/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


To answer your questions once Ford signed Nixon pardon it would have come into effect I cant see why it would be otherwise . Correct me if I am wrong but since Ford Pardon of Nixon was unconditional he couldn't rescinded the pardon. It seems likely that Bush didn't formally sign the paper work for Toussie Pardon and that this is a whole thing is a publicity stunt to avoid the kind of storm that surrounded the Clinton Pardons .

Even if it possible to rescinded a pardon in same sort of manner chargers are dropped when someone is found to be innocent it is a pretty low thing to do to give someone false hope in such a manner .

reply to post by xpert11

To answer your questions . . (1) Correct me if I am wrong but since Ford Pardon of Nixon was unconditional he couldn't rescinded the pardon . . (2) It seems likely that Bush didn't formally sign the paper work for Toussie Pardon and that this whole thing is a publicity stunt to avoid the kind of storm that surrounded the Clinton Pardons . . (3) it is a pretty low thing to do to give someone false hope in such a manner.

1) Yes, and it is also my position. A pardon once granted, is not subject to further actions. That is the whole point of a PARDON. To put an END to a matter.

Or to FORGIVE a prior act that seems to the FORGIVER (president) to have been a miscarriage of justice.

2) Yes again. An oversight in the White House. This is due to the Bush43 CHANGE of the former procedure which put pardons in the domain of the Justice Department. It is much better equipped to review the persons history - the FBI is part of the Justice Department. The White House has none of those resources. BUT there is usually a REASON behind every move in W-DC!

NOTHING happens in a vacuum!

3) Well, we don’t know that Bush43 was not fully aware of those 2 “donations” totaling $31,000 or not. Bush43 has no reputation for truth-telling. Remember the WMDs? He does have a reputation of being ill informed and cavalier in much of what he does including sending 4,200 US servicemen to their deaths in Iraq.

But Bushr43 NEVER visited the vets at Walter Reed Hospital or he would have seen the mold and broken equipment. Hmm?

He constantly says HE cares about those good men, but I wonder if he really does? The private DAV - Disabled American Veterans - says the 2007 budget for the VA - $34 b. - was short about 50% and should have been $51 b. But George ignored that as usual. And do not forget the 2007 budget was enacted by the REPUBLICAN Congress. The same Congress that cheerfully sent $2 b. a week to Iraq! See Post Script.


PS. The Dem Congress elected in ‘06 but not taking office until January ‘07, did in fact raise the VA budget for ‘08. But Bush43 only came on-board for the increase after the Washington Post story revealed the lack of healthy facilities and shortage of professional personnel. In other words the Dems dragged the Republicans kicking and screaming into the world they pretend to want. So what’s new?

[edit on 12/27/2008 by donwhite]

Don I cant escape the conclusion that something stinks about this whole situation . In my mind Bush is either distracting people attention away from his other pardons or he is making a very lame attempted to leave the White House with some respectability. Either way I doubt that Bush was unaware like he claims .

When has a politician ever not at least had an inkling about some scandal that they always claim no prior knowledge of ?

Cheers xpert11 .

reply to post by xpert11

I cant escape the conclusion that something stinks about this whole [pardon] situation. In my mind Bush is either distracting people attention away from his other pardons or he is making a very lame attempt to leave the White House with some respectability. Either way I doubt that Bush was unaware like he claims. When has a politician ever not at least had an inkling about some scandal that they always claim no prior knowledge of? Cheers xpert11.

Exactly Mr X11. I don’t know how this problem is handled in NZ or the UK. It may be a singularly American problem because we use the THREE co-equal branches of government scheme where the UK at least uses the SINGLE branch of government approach. As I just wrote above the power of pardon is assigned to the president to be a CHECK on the Judicial branch just as his veto is to be on the Legislative branch.

Of course, the president can only pardon persons for violating Federal laws. We currently have about 180,000 persons in prison for violating those laws and maybe two times as many outside on probation and many others serving house arrest or confined in hospitals, etc. So there are plenty of eager candidates to choose from.

So how does the president decide who to pardon, and who not to pardon? Other than Lewis Scooter Liddy. He is singular. He already has HALF a pardon and I’m waiting to see when Bush43 gives him the OTHER half. There is a form on the internet for those seeking a pardon. Complete the form and mail it to the White House, Attn: Pardons, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, W-DC. 20001.

It has become a tradition of long standing for the out-going president to pardon a number of people. Although presidents usually pardon some well deserving persons they can also use that as cover to take care of their less deserving friends and the friends of their friends. Sometimes it gets real personal. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother for drug offenses, for example. The first Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger who was about to throw the book at Bush for his complicit role in the Reagan era Iran Contra scandals.

As you might expect, we have NO rules on pardons over here. The only restraint on the president’s actions are what the news media can ferret out about the recipients of a pardon and the public’s reaction. There are laws on the books forbidding the overt bribing of a public official. Or offering or soliciting a bribe as the governor of Illinois may soon learn.

It is dismaying that the news media learned about the $31,000 in political donations in less than 12 hours, yet the White House could not in the 20 or 30 days it has been considering the pardons. (The father Toussie made the donations but the pardon was for the son). But see my reference that Bush43 is now doing the pardons in the WH and not checked first at the Department of Justice. Just one more Bush43 SNAFU.

Republicans like to recall the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich. His rich and good to look at wife - her of double Ds without implants - was a $400,000 donor to the Clinton Library. Marc was accused of cheating on Federal contracts - maybe he worked for Halliburton? - owing taxes and defrauding his partners.

BUT, unlike Bush43's pardon of Toussie, the Clinton pardon was CONDITIONAL. The condition required Rich to submit to civil court jurisdiction to determine who and how much he owed and he had to pay that BEFORE the pardon became effective. It was NOT at all like the Bush43 Toussie pardon which had no conditions attached. Note: Last week I heard one of tv's talking heads say Marc Rich had not yet claimed the pardon.

I have formerly argued that Reagan was the LEAST informed man to occupy the White House in my lifetime, but now I’d definitely have to admit Bush43 knows/knew even LESS than Reagan.

On Reagan by the bye, I just listened to a book about the US in which the author says Reagan was already suffering from the early onset of Alzheimer’s in 1984. Many of the things I recall that he did not know but I thought he should have may well have been due to the disease and NOT to his lack of intellect.

Of course if Reagan knew that he had Alzheimer's then he did us a great disservice by running for a second term. That was even a more serious breach of trust than John McCain’s choice of the plainly unqualified and potentially disastrous Sarah Palin to be his VP. And we still don’t know if she is smarter than a 5th grader?

[edit on 12/28/2008 by donwhite]

Don my understanding is that any legal proceedings along the lines of what we are discussing is handled solely by the judicial system . The government could investigate actions the police take but given there response to accusations of what amounts to cointelpro and spying on activist groups I doubt that they ever will . The whole point of having seperate branches of government is to prevent this sort of thing from happening . However Congress proved by failing to stop warrants less wire taps from the get go that this isnt always the case .

Returning to the focus of the topic when New Zealand does eventually does become a Republic the sort of thing that we are talking about now will have to be dealt with in one form or another .

Here is a key question .

Are there any historical examples of the presidential power of pardon being put to its legitimate use ?

reply to post by xpert11

Don my understanding is that any legal proceedings along the lines of what we are discussing is handled solely by the judicial system.

Yes. It is the method of appeals from an adverse verdict in the trial court. It is a fundamental rule of law that every person is entitled to ONE appeal. Without opening Con Law 101, suffice it to say that no one has a RIGHT to a hearing by the Supreme Court. Those rights are spelled out in Article 3 of the US Con. 9 out of 10 applications for a hearing by the SC are denied which is in legal terms a concurrence or approval of the lower court’s prior decision.

The power of presidential pardon is still included as a check on the judiciary should it run amok.

The government could investigate actions the police take but given there response to accusations of what amounts to cointelpro and spying on activist groups I doubt that they ever will.

Right you are. But what makes our system look so confusing to outsiders is that the Federal FBI can investigate state and local police when there is a charge they have violated Federal civil rights laws. For example, in the 1980s Rodney King, the black man was filmed while being beaten by 8 LAPD after he was down. When the trial of the police resulted in an acquittal the ensuing LA Riots killed dozens and destroyed millions in property. Four of the officers were re-tried for VIOLATING King’s FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS and three of the LAPD were sent to prison.

The whole point of having separate branches of government is to prevent this sort of thing from happening. However Congress proved by failing to stop warrant-less wire taps from the get go that this isn’t always the case. Returning to the focus of the topic when New Zealand does eventually becomes a Republic the sort of thing that we are talking about now will have to be dealt with in one form or another.

Actually IMO, NZ can avoid this dual state-federal problem when NZ changes from a parliamentary to a congressional form of governance. The parliamentary system combines the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE branches but keeps the JUDICIARY separate. As I understand the modern UK style of governance. Note: Our state of Nebraska has an unicameral legislature.

Your Executive is the Governor General who is appointed by the British monarch (a fiction) as we know that is done only on the recommendation of the legislatures of the various members of the Commonwealth. That is a very good system and I would not give it up lightly.

Remember a republic’s PRESIDENT is the equivalent of a KING but serving only a fixed number of years. Look at the mess the US is in. In 2006 the people voted NO to Bush43 and elected the FIRST Dem controlled Congress since 1994. In NZ Bush43 would have been ousted before the end of the month. But instead and due to our fixed terms - originally meant to LIMIT the tenure of the super powerful president - kept Bush43 in office until January 20, 2009, regardless of the people’s will.

The Dem Congress wanted to STOP the Iraq War but learned it cannot do that. Remember that the Commons in the UK ousted Blair and put Brown under strict NO ARMED CONTACT rules in Iraq effectively ending the UK involvement in the Iraq War.

Here is a key question. Are there any historical examples of the presidential power of pardon being put to its legitimate use?

Yes. Here are five I selected for your perusal.

1) Samuel Alexander Mudd, (1833 - 1883) was a Maryland physician implicated and imprisoned for aiding and conspiring with John Wilkes Booth in the assassination of President of the United States Abraham Lincoln. Samuel Mudd, Michael O'Laughlen, Edmund Spangler and Samuel Arnold were all charged with conspiring to murder Lincoln.

On June 29, 1865, Mudd was found guilty with the others. Mudd escaped the death penalty by one vote [a 7 man military tribunal] and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On February 8, 1869, Mudd was pardoned by President Andrew Johnson, after Dr. Mudd had worked heroically fighting an yellow fever epidemic in the prison where he was serving his sentence, saving many lives.

2) Marcus Mosiah Garvey, Jr., a National Hero of Jamaica (1887 - 1940), was a publisher, journalist, Black nationalist, Pan-Africanist, and orator. Marcus Garvey was founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Convinced that Blacks should have a permanent homeland in Africa, Garvey sought to develop Liberia. On 27 June 1919, the Black Star Line of Delaware, was incorporated by the members of the UNIA with Garvey as President. Many complaints were made over the method of selling stocks in the BSL - Black Star Line.

Of the four Black Star Line officers charged in connection with the enterprise, only Garvey was found guilty of using the mail service to defraud. Garvey's supporters contested that the prosecution was politically motivated and a miscarriage of justice. They relied on key witnesses recanting their testimony and FBI Director Hoover's explicit regret that “Garvey had committed no crimes.” When the trial ended on 23 June 1923, Garvey was sentenced to five years in prison. He was granted bail pending appeal after serving three months in prison. Garvey's sentence was eventually commuted by President Calvin Coolidge to “time served.” [Not a full pardon].

3) Eugene Victor Debs (1855 - 1926) was an American union leader, one of the founding members of the International Labor Union and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), as well as a frequent candidate for President of the United States, running in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920 on the Socialist Party ticket. Through his presidential candidacies as well as his work with labor movements, Debs would eventually become one of the best-known Socialists in the United States.

In the early part of his political career, Debs was a member of the Democratic Party. Debs was arrested for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. [Wilson’s equivalent to Bush’s Patriot Act] The period was characterized by supporters of communism and socialism being arrested and detained under suspicion of sedition. [An old English charge of defaming the monarch or his government. A no no]. Aside: The ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union - fights any sedition law as violating the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association. End.

Deb's speeches against the Wilson administration and the war earned him the undying enmity of President Woodrow Wilson, who later called Debs a "traitor to his country.” Debs was tried and to no one’s surprise convicted and sentenced to serve ten years in prison.

Debs appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. In its ruling on Debs v. United States, the court examined several statements Debs had made regarding World War I after passage of the Espionage Act. The Court found Debs still had the “intention and effect” of obstructing the draft and recruitment for the war.

Among other things, the Court cited Debs's praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. stated in his opinion that “little attention was needed” since Debs' case was “essentially the same” as that of Schenck v. United States, in which the Court had upheld a similar conviction. [A very poorly supported decision by the Court]. Debs went to prison on April 13, 1919.

On December 25, 1921, Republican President Warren G. Harding commuted Debs' sentence to time served. [No pardon]. Debs was released from prison and was warmly greeted by President Harding at the White House. "I have heard so damned much about you, Mr. Debs, that I am very glad to meet you personally." In 1924, Eugene Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Communist Karl H. Wiik on the ground that "Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I, mainly because he considered the war to be in the interest of capitalism.” He did not get the prize.

4) Armand Hammer (1898 - 1990) was a flamboyant United States business tycoon most closely associated with Occidental Petroleum, a company he ran for decades. Early in the founding of the USSR, he developed close ties to the Soviet Union. He alone of Westerners was allowed to drill and pump oil from the USSR.

Hammer cultivated a wide network of friends and acquaintances. Late in life, he would brag that he had been the only man in history friendly with both Vladimir Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Hammer remains a controversial figure because of his ties to the Soviet Union, which led to speculation that he was disloyal to the United States.

Aside: Hammer made an often criticized sweetheart deal with Al Gore Jr’s father, also a US Senator Al Gore Sr, involving a lead mine in east Tennessee. The first Senator Gore ran interference for Hammer in the Senate. So what’s new? Gore Sr served 14 years in the House and 18 years in the Senate. End.

During his lifetime and because of his tight control of Occidental Petroleum, Hammer is blamed for the company's misdeeds, including environmental pollution, alleged mistreatment of its workers and four SEC investigations into financial improprieties.

Finally he was accused of making an illegal campaign contribution to Richard Nixon. Politically, Hammer was a staunch supporter of the Republican party. He boosted Richard Nixon's presidential campaign with $54,000 in campaign contributions. He was convicted on charges that one of these donations had been made illegally, but Hammer was later pardoned by Republican George H. W. Bush. [We do take care of our own?]

END OF PART 1

[edit on 12/29/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by xpert11


PART TWO, CONCLUSION

5) Brigham Young (1801 - 1877) was an American leader in the Latter Day Saint movement. He was the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1847 until his death in 1877. He was also the founder of Salt Lake City and the first governor of the Utah Territory.

Mormonism has had a turbulent history in the US. While in jail awaiting trial on treason charges, Joseph Smith, founder and then president of the church, was killed by an armed mob in 1844. Afterwards, when Young spoke to the congregation, many said he looked and sounded like Joseph Smith which they attributed to the power of God and accepted this as a sign Young was to lead the church as President of the “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.”

Brigham Young on race. William Ivers Appleby, a conservative Mormon Elder, wrote to Young in the following exert: “I found a coloured brother by name of -Lewis- a barber, an Elder in the Church, ordained some years ago by William Smith [John’s brother]. This Lewis I was informed has also a son [Enoch] who is married to a white girl [Mary Matilda Webster Lewis]. and both [are] members of the Church there. Now dear Br. I wish to know if this is the order of God or tolerated in this Church ie to ordain Negroes to the Priesthood and allow amalgamation [inter-racial marriage]. If it is I desire to Know, as I have Yet got to learn it.”

According to the minutes of the “Quorum of the Twelve” for December 3, 1847, Young confided to the Apostles that “he would have both Enoch Lovejoy Lewis and his wife Matilda killed if they were far away from the Gentiles." Young later (in 1863) reiterated, “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (LDS Journal of Discourses).

When federal officials received reports of widespread and systematic obstruction of federal officials in Utah (mostly judges), President James Buchanan decided to install a non-Mormon governor. When Young received word that federal troops were headed to Utah with his replacement, he called out his militia to ambush the federal column. During the defense of Deseret, now called the Utah War, Young held the U.S. Army at bay for a winter by taking their cattle and burning Army supply wagons.

Young made plans to burn Salt Lake City and move his followers to Mexico, but at the last minute he relented and agreed to step down as governor. Young later received a pardon [before his trial for treason] from Buchanan.

Aside: Utah’s admission into the Union was delayed until the Utah residents added a NO POLYGAMY clause in their new state Constitution. It was not until 1928 that the LDS finally changed its own rules to outlaw polygamy but to every appearance, the LDS now rigorously enforces this rule. The recent Texas episode involves a break-away smallish segment of True Believers. End.
en.wikipedia.org...:Recipients_of_American_presidential_pardons

[edit on 12/29/2008 by donwhite]

Ya know...I really don't like Bush.

But one(possibly only) thing I DO appreciate is he hasn't given out a large number of pardons, in fact his pardon numbers is right about where the number of people who approve of his presidency...I could be wrong...