by William Neikirk
The first president named George--Washington, that is--issued the first pardon. He did it for the non-indicted participants in the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. It helped quell passions over his government's decision to crush a protest over whiskey taxes.
Now the current president named George--Bush, that is--is holding the door open to pardoning a close aide (Scooter Libby) for lying to government investigators in a probe about leaking the name of a CIA operative whose husband had openly challenged the president's Iraqi war policy.
The prospect of a pardon for Libby, whose sentence has already been commuted by Bush, is not quelling passions. It is doing the opposite. Indeed, the president's constitutional power to pardon individuals has had a checkered past, and often has spurred more controversy than healing.
From the public's point of view, the pardoning power has become deeply enmeshed in politics--and its suspicions are well-founded. Political motivations appear tied up in many pardons of recent times.
Here's a simple example. Stung by the Sen. Hillary Clinton's and former President Clinton's criticism of the Libby commutation, the White House immediately brought up questionable pardons by Clinton when he left office in 2001--specifically the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, who had been charged with tax evasion. Rich's wife had contributed heavily to Democratic causes.
And there were other Clinton pardons that smacked of political considerations, including his half-brother Roger Clinton, for cocaine distribution, as well as a former CIA director and a former secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department, Henry Cisneros. He pardoned Dan Rostenskowi (D-Ill.), former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, for his role in a corruption scandal.
In the case of pardons, the pot should never call the kettle black. Republicans have raised suspicion about political motivations, too. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush issued a pardon to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who had been charged with lying to a special counsel over the Iran-Contra affair, and others involved in that scandal. This pardon played big role in shutting down the investigation.
The senior Bush also pardoned Edwin Cox Jr., son of a Texas oilman who had contributed a tidy sum the 40th president's library in College Station, Tex. The son had pleaded guilty to bank fraud.
Ronald Reagan pardoned George Steinbrenner, currently owner of the New York Yankees, in 1989, but only after Steinbrenner admitted his guilt in connection with conspiring to make illegal contributions to President Nixon's re-election campaign. Reagan also pardoned the FBI's Marc Felt, the "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame in 1981 for breaking into Vietnam protesters' homes without warrants when Nixon was president. Reagan apparently did not know that Felt was Deep Throat.
Nixon commuted the sentence of Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa in 1971, and Hoffa supported him for president in 1972. And in the most famous pardon of modern times, President Ford pardoned Nixon himself for his role in the Watergate affair. That decision played a big role in Ford's defeat in 1976, although before Ford's death, even many Democrats praised him for the decision.
Presidents have used the power of the pardoning power to try to heal. President Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers after the Civil War, and Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam draft evaders, prompting much controversy.
Now the controversy over pardons is more political than ever. If Bush takes the next step and pardons Libby before he leaves the presidency, it will be seen in a political context no matter how he tries to sell it to the public.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The "Swamp' has published more articles on Libby's commutation than on the the Immigration Bill.
In what alternate world is the former more important than the latter?
Posted by: Bruce | July 6, 2007 6:48 PM
Dubya is as phony as the day is long.
His commutation of Libby's prison term rents Libby's silence. Libby knows if he keeps his yap shut Dubya will seal the deal with a full pardon after the '08 election before he leaves office.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 6, 2007 6:56 PM
Bruce,
I regard your attempt to trivialize the damage the Bush Administration has done to the national security of this country as beneath contempt.
You are a Republican of the night.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 6, 2007 7:26 PM
Bill,
Nice job being able to post articles in the future.
Posted by: Terry | July 6, 2007 8:09 PM
Doogie, the NON outing of Valerie Plume has done no damage to national security. You folks keep saying that, but where is the proof? While you folks keep asking for the proof in anything we folks on the right say, let's see some proof to back up your nonsense. And, please no links from the DNC, dailykos, babs streisand, slate.com and the rest of the far left sites.
Bruce has a valid point. Polls show the people don't care about Libby or even know who he is. But polls show the American people overwhelmingly care about illegal immigration.
Posted by: John D | July 6, 2007 8:40 PM
So the politics in this country have gone from the first president saying " I can't tell a lie" to the current president saying he doesn't care if someone in his administration lies.
Posted by: Ken | July 6, 2007 8:47 PM
I am a "yellow dog" democrat but I have heard enough about the two anachronisms Bush and Libby. Bush is the lamest of ducks slowly losing his feathers and Libby is a convicted felon who may be pardoned but will never be important again.
This sillyness is not worth continued attention. Try to get some focus on health care, the debacle that is Iraq, our horrendous debt, replacing the lobbyists that are running Federal Depts into the ground. There are a lot of things the Bushies do not want to talk about. Get at them.
Posted by: c. perry | July 6, 2007 8:53 PM
The "Swamp' has published more articles on Libby's commutation than on the the Immigration Bill.
Yayyyy Swamp!!! Bruce is having a baby because people are talking about Bush and his band of hooligans. The major premise of the Bush pardon = Clinton did it. One of the undeniable realities of today is that 1/2 of Republicans will follow George the Second over a cliff. Man, I just don't understand them. OK Clinton did what he did and got impeached for it. More Democrats than Republicans were ready to hang Clinton for his hanky panky, because it cast a dark shadow over the whole party. But after he was acquitted by the Senate the Dems were still ready to kick his butt oxes. People like Albright were openly critical of him. But with Bush, who has driven the Armed Forces nearly to exhaustion, driven up the national debt, caused American prestige around the World to tank, destabilized the Mid-East, and on, and on, the Republicans still think he is a fantastic President. So to ask a question that Bruce didn't know how to ask - from what hell was Bush, and all those androids who support him, reincarnated?
Posted by: GW | July 6, 2007 8:56 PM
Clinton pardoned 16 F.A.L.N. terrorists,some with 105 year sentences...now that's damage to our national security(Doug Zook),not some C.I.A secretary,like 007 Valerie Plame,that was outed by Richard Armitage.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | July 7, 2007 12:49 AM
"Political pardon", eh?
Only about political consequences, Bill Neikirk?
You certainly rushed through
George H.W.'s Iran-Contra
Fiasco Investigation pardons of SIX.
Hang it on W.J. Clinton--
Where is the evidence of a
"political" quid pro quo
with the Marc Rich pardon?
HUD Sec. Henry Cisneros
was never convicted for any
crime while serving during
the Clinton administration.
Representative Dan Rostenkowski was convicted
and imprisoned. He did his
time.
When will professional journalists scrutinize, compare, and analyze
stated cases/pardons/commu-
tations relative to severity, conduct-rule of law, short & long-term consequences?!?
Posted by: ABE | July 7, 2007 12:52 AM
Doug you are exactly right. Nothing could make the Bush administration more contemptable than they already are. But then again, there's always tomorrow.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | July 7, 2007 5:25 AM
Polls show the people don't care about Libby or even know who he is.
Posted by: John D | July 6, 2007 8:40 PM
That may be true windbag, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration is fraut with indefensible corruption. You can deflect the issues by attcking Bill Clinton but it still won't change the stench emitting from the Bush Whitehouse. I find the fact that you mindlessly defend them as tantamount to treachery. You, Bruce the RNC stooge and Paula (the dumbest of the bunch) are a sad lot of brainwashed lemmings. Wake up to the realization that you been betryed by your leaders. Truely pathetic drivel day in and day out. Bruce how much does the RNC pay you??? Why do you dodge the question???
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | July 7, 2007 8:05 AM
The following is a link to the full transcript of Special Prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald's comments regarding the seriousness and scope of what the Bush Administration did when outing CIA covert operative Valerie Plame:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28text-fitz.html?ex=1183953600&en=78c3a162c0047749&ei=5070
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 7, 2007 8:30 AM
JuanD
Polls also show chimpy to be the most unpopular president in American history, and that the majority of Americans wants out of Iraq now. Do you find those polling numbers valid as well? You can't just cherry pick your numbers.
Posted by: snitramc | July 7, 2007 8:59 AM
Mr. No Logic, when it comes to administration stench, no administration in U.S. history (including Nixon) had more crime, more stench, more illegal activity than the Slickmeister, Willy Boy himself. From TravelGate to FBI files to Chinese campaign donations to coffee klatches in the White House to selling the Lincoln bedroom to Whitewater to Castle Grande to Monica Lewinsky to assaulting then intimidating Kathleen Willey to pardons to Web Hubbell to Vernon Jordan to Vince Foster and illegally entering his office to pilfer what they could before the police showed up to Roger Clinton to Hugh Rodham to pardoning FALN terrorists to Rose Law Firm records mysteriously showing up to oh what the heck, I think I have more than enough here.
Oh and ABE, the quid pro quo with Marc Rich was the multi-million dollar donation to Clintoon's library and his sexual escapades with Denise.
Posted by: John D | July 7, 2007 9:00 AM
It takes absolutely nothing to quell the passions of liberal Democrats--they are impassioned for a living with money from George Soros aided by Move-on.org, People for the American Way and numerous Clinton War Room sites led by John Podesta, Carville, Begala and others. Clinton pardoned 141 including brother Roger, terrorists, and fugitive Mark Rich aided by money from his ex-wife to Clinton's campaign fund.
Libby did nothing wrong he was the target of a Democraat witch hunt led by Chuckie Schumer, Dickie Durbin and others and spearheaded by an out of control special prosecutor looking for anything after he already knew Richard Armitage did it the crime but, he couldn't charge Armitage because sweet Valerie Plame wasn't covert.Libby said he was forgetful with a lot on his mind the Dems fired up the driveby media and voila--Fitzgerald danced to their tune to please Schumer, Durbin and others. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | July 7, 2007 9:06 AM
Polls show the people don't care about Libby or even know who he is.
Posted by: John D | July 6, 2007 8:40 PM
You're kidding..right? The only people who "don't" care are those hard core backers of this administration. When did the rule of law, and doing the right thing, become a non-issue?
Before you Ok this due to Clinton, please understand all of the past pardons by "all" presidents, are in my mind, VERY WRONG.
Posted by: bill r. | July 7, 2007 9:07 AM
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.
It's getting closer you Dan Burton Repubs.
Posted by: Raving Loon | July 7, 2007 9:20 AM
John D, quit living in the past. I agree with you about Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich who I might add was represented by Scooter Libby. However that does not change the fact that this whitehouse is totally corrupt and indefensible. I can admit Clinton wasn't perfect. Can you admit that Bush is a complete abysmal failure??? Why do you defend someone who is trampling the constitution and ruining our beloved country??? I can only assume that you are BRAINWASHED!!! The leaders you elected have failed you and commited crimes worthy of impeachment & imprisonment. Your defence of them renders you impotent.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | July 7, 2007 1:32 PM
Bill, nice job being able to post articles in the future.
Posted by Terry July 6, 2007 8:09 PM
Are you going to get some of your angry old rich white guy Republican friends to fire him, Terry?
Posted by: John E | July 7, 2007 2:29 PM
Why should anyone who is not a partisan Republican cheer the unprecedented (among many other things, Libby served no prison time, and it is unprecedented at least in the last half century for a president to "commute" a sentence of which no part was ever served) commutation of the unanimous jury decision that Scooter Libby was guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice?
Should "law and order" and "tough on crime" only apply to nobodies and Democrats?
Posted by: Middle America | July 7, 2007 2:57 PM
Mr. No Logic, when it comes to administration stench, no administration in U.S. history (including Nixon) had more crime, more stench, more illegal activity than the Slickmeister, Willy Boy himself.
Posted by: John D | July 7, 2007 9:00 AM
Quit smoking crack John D. You've lost it!
Posted by: Dunny Rummy | July 7, 2007 4:30 PM
Should "law and order" and "tough on crime" only apply to nobodies and Democrats?
Posted by: Middle America | July 7, 2007 2:57 PM
You got that right, buddy:
http://www.slate.com/id/2169927/
Posted by: dt | July 7, 2007 6:40 PM
Wow did you see Foaud Ajami, the neo-con columnist on Hardball? He said "Kenneth Starr was a runaway prosecutor." and that "Questions were asked of Bill Clinton that should have never been asked." all while defending Libbycon. (I do resent him using the insult thrown at us here as a nickname, BTW.) That is amazing. I guess the republitards have been wrong ALL THESE YEARS.
Posted by: snitramc | July 7, 2007 6:49 PM
This is such a stupid issue. Bush has the pardon power under Article II, it is in his sole discretion and it is not reviewable by any Court or Congress. Put another way, if you don't like the way he excercised this power, too bad. Every instance of a pardon involves the POTUS substituting his judgment for that of the justice system, and there are always people PO'd about it because someone is not facing the justice they deserve, and it's usually because they are rich or connected. I'm not defending Bush, and frankly I wouldn't care if Libby rotted in jail for the rest of his life. What irritates me is the incessant whining and mock indignation over not getting a pound of flesh from someone most people agree was a fall guy in this situation to begin with.
Posted by: Herbie H. | July 7, 2007 7:41 PM
What irraitates me is the inncessant whining and mock indignation over not getting a pound of flesh from someone most people agree was a fall guy in this situation to begin.
Posted by Herbie July 7, 2007 7:41 PM
Peachs & Herb,
Keep telling yourself that and maybe it'll become the truth, isn't that how it works in Neonut Land, Herb?
The ones who you say agree with you are the same 28% who have been wrong 100% of the time for the last 6+ years.
Posted by: John E | July 7, 2007 10:38 PM
No crime committed? How many CIA agents can you remember the White House outing recently? Or EVER? This one sounds like a "hit job" and if they are so innocent, then why do the key players either refuse to testify (Cheney) or perjure themselves (Libby). Any CIA employee who doesn't feel threatened by this is either stupid or corrupt, too. How good for national security is that?
Posted by: Giraffe | July 9, 2007 5:33 AM
Giraffe, I'll try to keep this simple for you because simple is about all you loopy lefters can handle and even that is questionable: Was anyone charged with a crime in the "outing" of Valerie Plume? No. Richard Armitage was the source of information for Bob Novak. Was he charged with a crime? No. Will Patrick Fitzgerald be charging ANYONE for "outing" her? No. Hence, it was not a crime.
Now if being perpetually stupid was a crime, you and the rest of your loony ilk would be imprisoned by now!
Posted by: John D | July 9, 2007 9:36 AM
Uncle Bill.... great article I am very proud of you !!!
Posted by: Yolonda | September 3, 2007 7:59 AM