Safire on pardons

By Sean Aqui | Related entries in General Politics, Law, News

Conservative columnist William Safire had his ire up over presidential pardons in 2001.

Result: the most flagrant abuse of the presidential pardon power in U.S. history. Even Clinton stalwarts are openly disgusted at their man’s departing display of shamelessness. But Rich’s hired guns in public relations and the law will soon claim that ”every president did it” or that ”Rich was persecuted by evil prosecutors.”

How can Clinton’s final presidential wrong be righted? A constitutional amendment to restrict the undemocratic kingly power is far off, and this unpardonable pardon can never be undone. But though justice in this case is denied, truth can be served, and the truth can hurt Rich and the perpetrators of his pardon.

Congressional hearings will begin next week to determine how the end run was made around all normal procedures. To display nonpartisanship, Dan Burton’s Government Reform Committee should call a predecessor chairman, John Conyers, who held hearings a decade ago into Republican failures to bring Rich to trial.

A threshold question: Why did Clinton decide the case on a one-sided presentation by Rich’s lawyer, Quinn, with no analysis from Justice’s pardon attorney, Roger Adams? Why was Rich’s prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, kept in the dark rather than asked for her rebuttal?

Safire was writing about Clinton’s shameful pardoning of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich. But isn’t it interesting how many of the same criticisms apply to President Bush’s pardon of Lewis Libby.

Note the similarities:

1. The claims of “everybody does it” and that Libby was “persecuted by evil prosecutors.”

2. The threshold question. Why did Bush decided the case after a one-sided consultation with a few close aides? Why was Libby’s prosecutor kept in the dark rather than asked for his rebuttal?

Safire supported Congressional hearings into how the pardon was made.

I wonder two things: If Bush supporters will admit the parallels, and if Safire will call for the same treatment this time around.

I’m not holding my breath.

Update: In response to the comment by Mark (since I get an error message whenever I try to post comments here): I agree that it can go both ways. But in the particular case, the FALN pardons didn’t bother me much at the time, and still don’t. The 16 members pardoned were never convicted of any role in the bombings, and all had either served their full sentence or served at least 19 years in prison. I’m okay with clemency in such cases. The Marc Rich pardon, on the other hand, was indefensible.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007 and is filed under General Politics, Law, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “Safire on pardons”

  1. Mark Olson Says:

    It’s all politics as usual. That is it goes the other way. See Mr Taranto’s comments regarding a Clinton pardon of FALN in today’s opinion journal and the reaction of the Democrats in Congress.

  2. Mark Says:

    Clinton’s pardon of the FALN terrorists was politcally motivated and helped pave Clinton’s image as a terrorist-lover.

    In addition, so was his pardon of that Jewish leader from upstate NY in exchange for vote for Hillary in 2000.

    Will you defend that?

    I’m not holding my breath.

  3. Sean Aqui Says:

    Clinton’s pardon of the FALN terrorists was politcally motivated and helped pave Clinton’s image as a terrorist-lover.

    If you can explain why Clinton would want to be known as a terrorist lover, be my guest.

    In addition, so was his pardon of that Jewish leader from upstate NY in exchange for vote for Hillary in 2000.

    Got a name?

    Will you defend that? I’m not holding my breath.

    This is incoherent. It would make sense if you wrote “Will you condemn that?”

  4. Sean Aqui Says:

    Wonder of wonders! I can post comments again!

  5. Jim S Says:


    Please tell me you don’t expect rationality from someone who’d make that post. Notice that they don’t address the fact that no one who Clinton pardoned worked for them and had potentially incriminating evidence they could testify to. Though I do think that Libby was loyal enough so that he wouldn’t betray his boss no matter what he did. And I do mean that he places no limits on what he would protect both Cheney and Bush from.

    As far as Taranto’s article goes, I couldn’t care less. The WSJ OpEd pages are pure junk. Completely worthless paper that makes Fox News actually seem fair and balanced.

Leave a Reply


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.

Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.

One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.

Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.

Related Posts: