This past Monday, President Bush did not pardon Scooter Libby. What’s that? You heard something different on the news? You should listen more closely. The President commuted Libby’s prison sentence. That’s different from a pardon, because in this case, Libby is still considered guilty in the eyes of the law. He still has a criminal record, and he still has to pay the other consequences that come with his conviction. He is spared only his time in prison.
The Presidential power to commute sentences comes from the same Constitutional clause that gives him the right to pardon. A commutation cannot be vetoed by Congress, it cannot be rejected by the Supreme Court, and the President does not have to explain his reasoning or follow any established protocols. His power to commute is untouchable and without limit.
That’s not true, though. There are political limits. Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence is costing him dearly. This relates to something I wrote about last week when I summarized Daniel Kobil’s essay about the Presidential power to pardon: Presidents (and governors) are often prevented from giving pardons and commutations because the political fallout will be too great. Now, you and I may not think Libby deserves a commutation, but Bush did. If Bush’s popularity wasn’t so low already, or if he was seeking reelection, do you think he might have reconsidered his decision? Why risk throwing away political capital just to save one man from spending 30 months in prison?
Do we really want a President making decisions about pardons and commutations based on his political ambitions? This can’t be what the Founders intended. The pardon was supposed to enhance justice and serve the public good. Today, it’s used only when it’s politically convenient.
Not to mention that in a few articles I have read, the president has commented that he hasn’t pardoned Libby….YET. He may be on the list of the “out the door pardons” that have made so many past presidents famous.
Question, Kenneth: Do you think it would be wise to place a time-limit on pardons? In other words, you can only pardon the first 3 years of a first sentence? (Just a quick thought) OR, do you think that this would seriously endanger the off-chance of limiting that power when it could possibly be used for a GOOD purpose?
Of course, this speaks nothing of my personal opinion on the entire Libby case, of which its resemblance to the Oliver North case can’t be entirely overlooked.
Bush knew it wouldn’t be a popular decision, but it was the RIGHT one. As you mentioned, Libby will still face the $200,000 fine (unless pardoned later), the rape of his reputation, and his family’s everlasting shame, which is only somewhat justified, considering Fitzgerald was conducting an investigation to which he already knew the answer (Richard Armitage was the person to name Plame). Libby should never have been on the stand to begin with, and from what I’ve read, there is legitimate reason to think that he was more forgetful than dishonest in his testimony. Either way, Fitzgerald could easily be disbarred for his actions, just like the scummy Nifong down at Duke was recently.
No, a time limit on pardons would be at odds with the whole concept. The President has the power to render a man blameless in the eyes of the law. Particularly if the justice system is corrupt–which has historically happened–there must be a way to completely wipe out a conviction. A pardon is the only way to accomplish that.
I haven’t studied the Libby case in great detail. Personally, I’m not sure he should have been prosecuted at all. On the other hand, the fact the the President commuted the sentence without going through the normal channels (usually the Justice department advises the President on pardons and commutations) makes it appear to be a corrupt decision. But that’s beside the point. The point is, Presidents often don’t make these sorts of pardons, because the political fallout will hurt them too much. Bush doesn’t have much to lose anymore, so he’s free to do whatever he wants. I for one do not believe that a pardon should depend on whether a President is standing for reelection and wants to protect his approval rating.
I’m not sure he should have been prosecuted either, hence my comment on Ollie North. Every great presidential scandal needs a good scapegoat.
Exactly my point. No crime was involved, so if he did perjure himself, he did so for apparently no good reason.