Bush's un-pardon raises plenty of questions

updated 12:36 a.m. ET Dec. 26, 2008

The ties that bind fathers and sons come in all shapes and sizes, including 10-foot-high chain-link fences.

That is one of the many connections between Robert Toussie and his son Isaac, who was pardoned and unpardoned by President Bush this week, decisions that set abuzz the normally sedate Brooklyn community of Manhattan Beach.

Neighbors say the elder Mr. Toussie built the fence a decade ago to keep rabble-rousers away from the shoreline promenade on the Rockaway Inlet that abuts his family’s waterfront homes, including one where Isaac lives.

While Mr. Toussie’s fence, which has No Trespassing signs in English and Russian, has largely kept the derelicts at bay, it has also alienated neighbors who might otherwise have little bad to say about him.

It also shines light on the complex relationship between Mr. Toussie and his son, who pleaded guilty in 2001 to using false documents to have mortgages insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and in 2002 to mail fraud, admitting that he had persuaded officials in Suffolk County to overpay for land.

The White House said Thursday that when Mr. Bush granted Isaac Toussie, 37, a pardon earlier this week, the president and his advisers were unaware that the elder Mr. Toussie had recently donated $30,800 to Republicans. Mr. Bush took the extraordinary step of rescinding the pardon on Wednesday after reports about the political contributions.

The White House spokeswoman, Dana M. Perino, said in an e-mail message Thursday that the administration never sought information on political donations in considering pardon applications.

“This would be inappropriate on many levels,” Ms. Perino said. “Given that no one advising the president knew of the donation by Toussie’s father, and because of the possibility of an appearance of impropriety, the counsel to the president withdrew his recommendation.”

While the younger Mr. Toussie has said nothing publicly since the revelation of the donations on Tuesday, his supporters say he deserved a pardon because he was contrite about his misdeeds and had made significant charitable contributions before and after his convictions. Both of these factors are believed to have been factors in Mr. Bush’s original decision to grant the pardon.

“There was a long list of charitable donations and work he had done since his sentence,” Ms. Perino said.

Officials said Fred F. Fielding, the White House counsel, was unaware in reviewing the petition that Mr. Toussie’s father had recently donated $28,500 to the Republican National Committee and $2,300 to the presidential campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona.

People involved in the pardon process say it has become more common in recent months for those seeking clemency to go directly to the White House, as Mr. Toussie’s lawyer, Bradford Berenson, did, rather than go through the Justice Department.

More from NYTimes.com One Town’s Rare Ray of Hope: New Auto Plant An Effort to Save a City by Shrinking It Lawmaker Is Said to Have Agreed to Aid Lobbyists Pressure Grows to Investigate Interrogations Crisis or Not, Russia Will Build a Bridge in the East External links

Mr. Bush’s revoking of the pardon was so unusual that some legal experts questioned whether he had the authority to reverse the pardon, one of 19 the White House announced Tuesday. But the Justice Department said it believed that the original pardon announcement was not binding and could be revoked because Mr. Toussie had not received formal notification of the president’s action. Mr. Toussie’s lawyers hope he might still be granted a pardon once the Justice Department completes a formal review.

The father and son have worked in real estate for years, but in 2001 the elder Mr. Toussie sued Suffolk County, saying, in effect, that they had been tied too closely together. The suit, still pending, said the county had refused to sell Robert Toussie 31 parcels of land he won at a county auction because of his son’s legal troubles.

Both Toussies are among the defendants in a class-action lawsuit filed in 2001 by about 400 home buyers, most of them black or Hispanic, who say they were sold poorly constructed new homes at inflated prices and were fooled into believing that property taxes would be deferred or reduced. The case is continuing.

MORE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

The New York Times Section Front

NYT: Dems grow wary as health bill advances Analysis: Obama's next pick at stake Palin's route to resignation Cheney linked to hiding of CIA project Ghana visit points to Africa's instability Ruling offers little guidance on fair hiring Political shifts on gay rights lag behind culture New rights for transgender workers Privacy may be a victim in cyber plan How the U.S. surplus became a deficit The New York Times Section Front