This week the President pardoned Isaac Toussie and wiped his slate clean. Mr. Toussie confessed to schemes that cost Suffolk County millions of dollars and many Long Islanders their homes.
But first of all would someone please explain why a President should be allowed to hand out pardons in the first place?
Obviously those who receive pardons have done something wrong or they would not need the high level leniency. They must have also been convicted by a jury of their peers to be placed in the position from which they are pardoned.
I understand that in some cases justice is ill served by a conviction and upon further review may be appealed and repealed but to allow a pardon merely because a man has a wealthy family or connected friends flies in the face of fairness to society. In this case Mr. Toussie only donated $28,500 to the Republican National Committee. I am surprised that the President did not hold out for more.
But what makes the most recent pardons even more abhorrent is that they have been granted by a President who should be thrown in jail and never be pardoned himself for the trampling of our constitution and many other heinous acts too numerous to reiterate here.
History may condemn Mr. Bush, as well it should but the criminals he pardoned will have a clean slate upon which they may write new scams and crimes.
If we must have Presidential pardons should they not be made after a bi-partisan board has reviewed them and agreed to them in private? The verdict from a jury of their peers must not be overturned by a jury of one friend.