On Tuesday, George Bush pardoned Isaac Robert Toussie, a felon who pled guilty and was convicted of making false statements to the Housing and Urban Development Department and of mail fraud. On Wednesday, that pardon was revoked because the White House (a metanym for "Bush") wanted to avoid creating "an appearance of impropriety," after it was discovered that Toussie's father was a major RNC contributor.

Let's put this in perspective. Pardon's are a special privilege that empowers presidents to basically say, "fu*k the law and courts, I've decided to let the guy off scot free!" There can be almost no pretext about the use of this privilege to set things right or "do the right thing," even thought I'm aware that it has, in fact, been used in such a way in the past (draft dodgers, Confederate vets, etc.) Usually, it's a way of helping out friends, allies, or colleagues.

So why is it all of a sudden not okay to pardon Toussie because his dad was an RNC contributor or that he might have been a bit more unsavory then expected? He's a criminal and Bush sought to get him off the hook. So he's a bribing criminal and that's over the line?

My question is this: Bush is trying to avoid impropriety but are any pardons of convicted criminals really "proper." 

Thanks for commenting and recommending.