FrontPage

Nation

World

Media

Culture

Technology

Commentary

Clinton and the Pardons

TruthNews Commentary, March 7, 2001

The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4).

At TruthNews, we have secretly enjoyed the trouble that ex-President Clinton appears to have gotten himself into over the last minute pardons. However, after several weeks of accusations and investigations, it’s time to face reality: Clinton (for once) did nothing wrong. Or at least nothing illegal, although his conduct in these pardons once again demonstrates the sleaziness of his administration. But for those who love the constitution, let’s consider a few facts about the pardon:

• The power of the pardon is absolute, requiring the consent of no other person, not even the person being pardoned. Suggestions that Clinton did not follow proper procedure or obtain an opinion from Attorney General Janet Reno are irrelevant. The president is not required to seek anyone else’s counsel on a pardon. The decision to issue a pardon is his and his alone to make.

• The President’s power to pardon is limited to only federal crimes. The president has no power to pardon state crimes. That power, if it exists, is established by state constitutions and usually resides with the state governor, although generally it is somewhat more restricted than the President’s power to pardon federal crimes. Fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose pardon was perhaps the most notorious of the 140 that Clinton issued in his last day in office, is still wanted in New York on fraud and state tax evasion charges. If Rich ever sets foot in the U.S. again, he’ll be thrown into the slammer faster than Osama Bin Laden.

• Pardons are for the guilty. There are other protections for the innocent, such as grand juries, trial by jury, appeals, and new trials. That’s why mass murderers spend decades on death row before they’re finally executed. No, the pardon is for the guilty, and 99 percent of all people who have received pardons are probably guilty as hell. So don’t bellyache that Clinton pardoned a bunch of felons--complain to the founding fathers who put this power into the constitution.

• Pardons can be granted to people who have never been arrested. One of the major complaints made about the Rich pardon is that he’s a fugitive. (The term "fugitive" is used loosely, since Rich is actually living in the lap of luxury in Switzerland, which apparently does not consider bilking people out of their life savings as an extraditable offense. Besides, extraditing criminals would probably be bad for the Swiss banking system. In any case, after playing international banker to such arch-criminals as Herman Goering, the likes of Marc Rich appear to be small potatoes to the Swiss.) Well, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard ("I am not a crook") Nixon before he had even been indicted, much less arrested, so there’s ample precedent for the Rich pardon.

Some have accused Clinton of giving Rich a pardon in exchange for what amounted to a bribe. This would truly be illegal if Clinton did take a bribe--the President can pardon anyone he wants to, but he’s not supposed to take bribes. Bribery, by the way, is one of two crimes that are specifically listed as being an impeachable offense, the other being treason (the infamous catch-all "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" covers anything else that Congress might want to impeach the president for). However, trying to accuse Clinton of taking a bribe is far-fetched. True, Marc Rich’s ex-wife donated money to Clinton’s library, but this is hardly a bribe. When a company contributes to a congressman’s campaign, and the congressman then supports legislation that helps the company, it’s not a bribe because the money doesn’t go directly into the congressman’s pocket--well, not until he retires, at which time he’s allowed to pocket any unused campaign funds, but it’s still not considered a bribe. If these campaign contributions were considered bribes, we’d have 535 congressmen sitting in jail and we could move the federal capitol to Leavenworth. Denise Rich’s contribution to Clinton’s library is of the same nature--unless Clinton actually pocketed the money, it’s not a bribe. Even if he did pocket the money, the prosecutor would have to prove that the pardon was actually given in exchange for the money, which might be difficult since Denise Rich is the ex-wife, not the wife, of Marc Rich and presumably hates his guts.

Clinton has also claimed that one of the primary reasons he granted Rich a pardon was because of a request from the Israeli government. Apparently, Rich has used some of the millions that he stole to do good works in Israel. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak has acknowledged asking Clinton to pardon Rich. Since Clinton had already reneged on his promises to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, upgrade the strategic relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and provide $450 million to pay for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, he probably figured that he could throw Barak a bone by pardoning Rich. In any case, it’s not as if Rich will return to the U.S. and start swindling people again, because there’s still that matter of the New York state charges.

There have been other pardons in recent history that have appeared as equally questionable as the Clinton pardons. One of Gerald Ford’s first acts as president was to pardon his disgraced predecessor Richard Nixon. Many people suspected a quid pro quo, in which Nixon agreed to resign (thereby making Ford president) in exchange for a pardon. In 1992, George Bush, Sr., in one of his last acts as president, pardoned several high ranking members of the Reagan administration who had been indicted on Iran Contra charges. Iran Contra independent prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, who spent $100 million on the investigation with no convictions, threatened to indict Bush (who had been Reagan’s Vice President and possibly had a role in the scandal), but the indictment never materialized.

The pardon is one of many checks and balances built into the federal system. In this case the pardon acts as a check on the judiciary (much feared in the days of the founding fathers) as well as Congressional follies such as the independent prosecutor. However, like the other checks and balances, the President is expected to exercise his power responsibly, and for his irresponsibility, Clinton can legitimately be criticized. However, for someone who took the country to war twice to divert attention from his personal scandals and gave away nuclear secrets to Red China in exchange for communist campaign contributions, showing a little favoritism to the ex-husband of a donor to his presidential library is hardly surprising.

Besides, the only reason that Clinton was able to pardon so many people is that Congress has federalized many crimes with no constitutional justification for doing so. Why are dope dealers, bank robbers, and mobsters prosecuted by the feds? Sure, selling dope, sticking up banks, and running prostitution rings are all bad, but then so are murder, rape, arson, and double parking, and the states have proven themselves perfectly capable of dealing with these heinous crimes (well, maybe not double parking--call your congressman and get this added to the federal code). In fact, by federalizing these crimes, Congress has invented a new form of double jeopardy--if the state tries someone and the jury finds them innocent, a federal prosecutor can drag the person to court and try him for the exact same thing (although with a new name--violating civil rights, racketeering, etc.)

No one appears to be questioning Clinton’s pardoning of his brother, Roger, on dope charges. (There’s a word for this--it’s called "nepotism.") No one is questioning Clinton’s pardon in September of 1999 of 11 Puerto Rican terrorists in order to help Hillary’s Senate bid. Well, actually, the "right wing" questioned that pardon, but Clinton was staunchly defended by the likes of the New York Times. The media’s hysteria over the recent pardons can only be viewed as blatant hypocrisy. Where was the New York Times during Filegate, Travelgate, and Chinagate?

However, this is similar to the Lewinsky scandal, when the media focused on the adultery aspects (sordid, sensational, but not a crime) and ignored the perjury, a criminal offense that would have landed other people in jail. We expect that the pardon scandal will go the same way. In a few weeks, the New York Times and the rest of the liberal press will realize that (1) Clinton did not commit a crime in issuing the pardons and (2) that their negative reporting on this issue has caused Clinton’s approval rating to suffer. Then, just as they did after the Republican congress was elected in 1994 (due primarily to the ongoing Clinton scandals), the liberal media will shift gears and start attacking the "right wing Christians" for causing all of Clinton’s problems. Meanwhile, the media will have successfully diverted attention from anything good that George W. Bush is trying to do. Given that Monicagate and the impeachment boomeranged to give Clinton his highest approval ratings ever, the pardon scandal should get him elected pope.