What it takes to get a pardon

Roger Simon has a very good piece today about a political topic du jour: pardons. Specifically, Simon notes the story of Anthony Circosta, the kind of guy who deserves a pardon, and contrasts him with Scooter Libby, the kind of guy who doesn’t. (thanks to K.Z. for the tip)

Circosta isn’t political and isn’t a celebrity, but he is a decorated veteran of the war in Iraq, where he led a platoon of soldiers in the Sunni Triangle. Upon returning home to Massachusetts, Circosta, who earned a Bronze Star, once again volunteered to help protect people, applying to his local police force.

But there was a problem. When he was 13, Circosta shot another kid in the arm with a BB gun. His “victim” was unhurt — the BB didn’t even break the other kid’s skin — but 13-year-old Circosta was charged and convicted with assault. The incident disqualifies him from becoming a police officer.

Circosta petitioned then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for a pardon, which the state Board of Pardons recommended he receive. Romney refused. Twice. “I’ve done everything I can to give back to my state and my community and my country, and to get brushed aside is very frustrating,” Circosta recently told a reporter.

As Simon explained, Circosta would have been far better off if Romney saw a political upside to granting him a pardon.

It is not as if Circosta is some serious, unrepentant criminal like, well, like Scooter Libby, for instance, whom Romney says he might pardon if Romney ever reaches the Oval Office.

Romney says he had a standard when it came to handing out pardons as governor: He didn’t want to overturn jury verdicts. And so he never granted a single pardon in his four years in office, a fact he is enormously proud of today and repeatedly raises in his speeches.

But Romney’s standard is flexible when it comes to Libby, who was Dick Cheney’s chief of staff and whose cause has been taken up by the conservative Republican establishment.

And Romney’s true standard seems to be: No pardons for nobodies. Somebodies can catch a break.

Romney’s campaign explained the former governor’s reasoning. It didn’t help.

A Romney spokesperson told Simon that the “charge [against Circosta] was felony assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Our executive clemency guidelines discouraged pardons for felony firearm offenses if the purpose of the pardon was to obtain a license to carry.”

Remember, Circosta was 13 at the time, went on to put himself through college, and then served with distinction in a war. Now he wants to be a police officer. Romney is unfazed.

But if you out a covert CIA agent during a war, lie about it, and are convicted by a jury, Romney is all ears.

Romney provided part of the answer on June 5 at a Republican debate in Manchester, N.H., in which CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates, “Would you pardon Scooter Libby?”

Romney replied: “This is one of those situations where I go back to my record as governor. I didn’t pardon anybody as governor, because I didn’t want to overturn a jury. But in this case, you have a prosecutor who clearly abused prosecutorial discretion by going after somebody when he already knew that the source of the leak was Richard Armitage. He’d been told that. So he went on a political vendetta.”

“Was that a yes?” Blitzer asked.

“It’s worth looking at that,” Romney said. “I will study it very closely if I’m lucky enough to be president. And I’d keep that option open.”

In Republican circles, this makes perfect sense. Indeed, to hear the GOP tell it, we need tougher sentences, inflexible mandatory-minimums, and anything that smacks of “amnesty” is beyond the pale. Except for Scooter.

Simon recommends that Romney, should he become president, take another look at Anthony Circosta’s request, because, “every now and then, the nobodies deserve a break, too.”

Maybe if Circosta ponied up some campaign cash, he’d have better luck.

I beg your pardon, I never promised in the Rose Garden.

I guess this blog would qualify as a “lefty” blog, but it just makes nothing but sense to me–beyond middle or left or right.

  • It’s this sort of thing that makes me think that if the Democrats really want to fight back hard this year, they will. It’s almost too easy not to do so. After all, who is going to come down on Romney’s side in this case? And he’s no longer the governor, so he can’t pardon the man right now. The only person who could do that would be Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat.

  • brian, of course, has it just right: deval patrick should pardon circosta today.

    and clinton-obama-edwards should jump up and praise him for it.

  • Romney is such a “buck-passing” bonehead. Just like Bush, he is robotic, having only the capacity for inside-the-box, rigid thinking.

  • So, according to Romney et al., a BB gun attack at 13 years of age, wherein no injury resulted, equals a “felony assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.”

    That is apparently untrue.

    Romney stated at a debate “didn’t pardon anybody as governor, because I didn’t want to overturn a jury.”

    That, also, is apparently an untrue red-herring. Surely a BB gun attack of a 13 year-old did not require a jury? Or did it?

    The mind reels.

  • Seriously, how can this be a big problem for Romney?

    OK, he didn’t pardon a guy who probably deserved a pardon.

    But, Did Gov. Patrick pardon the guy? If not, why not?

    Has anyone talked the current governor about this case?

  • Simon recommends that Romney, should he become president, take another look at Anthony Circosta’s request, because, “every now and then, the nobodies deserve a break, too.”

    That wouldn’t do any good because, IIRC, the presidential pardon power only runds to people convicted of crimes at the federal level.

  • Maybe Romney’s real message is not to Scooter Libby, but to the many others in the administration who may be facing the possibility of indictments, trials and convictions: “have no fear – if I’m elected, you can count on a pardon.” And the rest of the message is that whichever Republican gets the nomination, he is going to need every last percentage of “the base” to have even a remote chance of winning, and if the current administration’s staff are not the base, I don’t know who is.

  • The fact that mainstream Republicans are openingly accusing Patrick Fitzgerald of pursuing “a political vendetta” still floors me. I can’t overstate how absurd that suggestion is to anyone who has even a passing knowledge of who Fitzgerald is. Prior to this case, he was literally THE most respected federal prosecutor in the country; that’s why Comey picked him, because he was beyond reproach. He’s a Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney with in long history of being a by-the-books, apolitical kind of guy. Republicans will literally say anything.

  • Republicans will literally say anything.

    I think Romney is the new poster child for this approach, but in all fairness, it could be a group shot, since all the others are doing the same thing – with the exception of Ron Paul, who knows he doesn’t stand a chance of getting the nomination.

  • So, he committed felony assault with a dangerous weapon–we definitely don’t want him to have any dangerous weapons. But, then we let him in the armed services and arm this dangerous felon to the teeth?
    Well, as long as he’s killing over there and not almost puncturing over here.

  • But in this case, you have a prosecutor who clearly abused prosecutorial discretion by going after somebody when he already knew that the source of the leak was Richard Armitage. He’d been told that. So he went on a political vendetta

    I guess we need a timeline – did Libby commit PERJURY and OBSTRUCT JUSTICE before Fitzgerald definitively found out it was Armitrage who leaked? If so, then the GOP argument is absolutely nothing more than a smokescreen and Fitzgerald had every right in the world to go after Libby.

  • …and this, ladies and gentlemen, serves as an example of why Romney is so pathologically dangerous. If he is the “Manchurian Candidate,” then we might define the ReThuglican Crime Family as being “Manchuria….”

  • The criticism of Fitzgerald only makes sense if you believe he was supposed to only go after the lowest ranking guilty party (like we now find were the marching orders of the General investigating Abu Graib). Finding out that Armitage was the leak should not have ended the investigation. Who told Armitage? Was it part of an effort by the VP or President? Libby’s lies made it impossible to move higher up the chain. SO much for the rule of law.

  • As Barney Frank, congressman from Mass., put it:

    “The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics.”

  • How many people would need to write to Gov Patrick and request he pardon Circosta before it becomes a movement?

    I’m willing to go first.

  • Bush is pricing bb guns as a replacement weapons in Iraq even as we speak. “Courts have ruled that BB guns are ‘dangerous weapons'”

  • Mikem has a great point. But on a tangent to that, would that army have allowed Circosta in their ranks if he was such a dangerous felon? Circosta obviously got into the army before all the recruiting problems so they weren’t having to scrape the bottom to the barrel yet. The Romney camp is obviously overplaying the situation if the army evaluated Circosta and was able to see his past indiscretion was not a seriously criminal act.

  • ethel-to-tilly, i’m going to start with an assumption that you are honestly confused as opposed to playing a game.

    there were 4 people who leaked information: richard armitage, karl rove, ari fleischer, and lewis libby. the idea that because armitage was novak’s first source, everyone else was free to leak is transcendently ridiculous.

    the idea that because armitage leaked, there was nothing more to investigate is equally pathetic: there would still be the question of why he leaked, and how learned the information, and what it said about concern for classified information.

    fitzgerald’s job was to see whether the law was broken, not to do what the bush administration should have done and find and fire the leakers. given that armitage, rove (eventually), and fleischer all told the grand jury the truth whereas libby not only lied but continues to express no contrition for lying suggests – just as fitzgerald told us – that the lies have a deeper purpose, to obscure the role someone else (yes, that would be dick cheney) had in the process, and that libby wants to keep throwing sand in the umpire’s eyes.

    romney has no excuse for not knowing any of this: he’s either a liar, an idiot, or someone so desperate for the support of the neocon elite that he doesn’t care.

    up until now, you’ve had an excuse, but you don’t any more, so please don’t try this one again.

  • whether fitzgerald knew armitage leaked the story or not, the fact remained that scooter committed perjury. period. it was fitzgerald’s responsibility to bring charges at that point.

  • that hairwig he has would be perfect bb gun target practice. it’s so big and poofy i hear it’s one of the few things you can see from space. if he sat in my barber chair i’d charge him $400 for a haircut. maybe more.
    does he even realize what a bafoon he looks and sounds like? you think he’d have to know that he looks like a total ass. or maybe that’s his shtic: to seem as dumb and bafoonish as possible so he can win the south. hell, it worked for bush. WHY NOT.

  • If your going to hand out pardons you should at least charge for them.The selling of pardons rule book was authored by Bill and Hillary their last two days in office. You never can tell if those book deals will go through and you just might need money to get back to Arkansas.( or wherever you may come from)

  • bluedog, do you have to display your apalling ignorance in a public place? children might be looking and lord knows what you’ll do to them.

    what a frickin’ idiot (and i bet you think you’re a clever sort, doncha?).

  • Comments are closed.