Nothing to See Here
William McKinley's pardon attorney found himself defending the administration's seeming habit of granting clemency to bankers who wrecked financial institutions. He told newspaper reporters there was "no truth" to the charge that bankers were receiving "special treatment" and presented data to back his point. It turned out bankers who sought pardons during the second term of Grover Cleveland were successful 93 percent of the time. So, the argument went, the success rate of 66 percent in McKinley's administration was really nothing about which to be overly concerned.
Woodrow Wilson once exercised clemency on behalf of some wealthy businessmen and the New York Times reported that the President may have been swayed by the passionate pleas of one of their wives. Soon, a Democratic leader was chastising the press for "attempting to make a sensation" regarding the president's decision. The press was told there was "no occasion" or "earthy excuse" for "excitement" as the "record" had been carefully examined. Furthermore, the Attorney General had been consulted and everything was in accordance with "regularly and orderly procedure." Later, it was revealed that the lawyer for the defendants was a key player in the President's campaign and the Department of Justice had not recommended clemency. An investigation followed, as the decision was clearly the product of an "unusual proceeding."
George H. W. Bush granted fewer pardons than almost every president before him and signed only three commutations of sentence. One of them went to an individual, Aslam Adam, who was only in the 8th year of a 54-year sentence (2 years short of eligibility for parole). The U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Adam said Bush's commutation was “most unusual” and "exceedingly peculiar." A former head of U.S. Customs Service called it “bizarre.” A former official of the United States Parole Commission was “absolutely shocked.” Early release was opposed by the D.E.A. and the U.S. Pardon Attorney. But a new pardon attorney arrived on the scene, recommended clemency and two days before Bush left office, the commutation was granted. The pardon attorney told inquiring reporters, “There’s not really a story here.”
On February 14, 2001, Margaret Colgate Love, a former U.S. Pardon Attorney, testified at a Hearing on Presidential Pardons conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, February 14, 2001. Love told the Committee:
I therefore had firsthand experience with the administration of the pardon power during the administrations of Presidents Bush and Clinton, and I am also familiar with pardoning practices in previous administrations. Finally, I have studied and written about the origins and rationale of the pardon power, and its evolving function in the federal criminal justice system … This system worked efficiently and for the most part quietly, resulting in over a hundred grants of pardon and commutation almost every year between 1900 and 1980 …While there was an occasional controversial grant, the only pardon-related scandals during the 20th century involved the rare situation that was handled outside of the normal process (Nixon and Iran-Contra).
There is certainly little doubt that the vast majority of presidential pardons have not produced a firestorm of protest and controversy. That is exactly why no intelligent person has ever once taken that position. But this trite observation carries a larger degree of irrelevance for at least three other reasons. First, the lack of public controversy is not a very good measure of the presence (or absence) of controversial behavior, not in a matter as technical, low-profile and behind-the-scenes as the clemency process. Second, administration officials and Department of Justice employees have long downplayed clemency controversies for obvious reasons. Public controversy can be accompanied by investigation, unwelcome scrutiny, greater accountability, demand for reform and additional restraints on bureaucratic discretion. Finally, clemency applications that go through the "normal process" are not immune from public criticism - or should not be. Folk-singer-celebrity-Democratic-fundraiser- extraordinaire Peter Yarrow filed an application for pardon and it went through "the normal process" ... in only seven weeks ... just before Jimmy Carter left office. Yarrow's pardon application skipped past hundreds of others filed much earlier. Likewise, Jimmy Hoffa's clemency application was received only one week before a commutation of sentence was granted. It appears that Ms. Love does not consider such examples to be "controversial." I respectfully disagree.
Woodrow Wilson once exercised clemency on behalf of some wealthy businessmen and the New York Times reported that the President may have been swayed by the passionate pleas of one of their wives. Soon, a Democratic leader was chastising the press for "attempting to make a sensation" regarding the president's decision. The press was told there was "no occasion" or "earthy excuse" for "excitement" as the "record" had been carefully examined. Furthermore, the Attorney General had been consulted and everything was in accordance with "regularly and orderly procedure." Later, it was revealed that the lawyer for the defendants was a key player in the President's campaign and the Department of Justice had not recommended clemency. An investigation followed, as the decision was clearly the product of an "unusual proceeding."
George H. W. Bush granted fewer pardons than almost every president before him and signed only three commutations of sentence. One of them went to an individual, Aslam Adam, who was only in the 8th year of a 54-year sentence (2 years short of eligibility for parole). The U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Adam said Bush's commutation was “most unusual” and "exceedingly peculiar." A former head of U.S. Customs Service called it “bizarre.” A former official of the United States Parole Commission was “absolutely shocked.” Early release was opposed by the D.E.A. and the U.S. Pardon Attorney. But a new pardon attorney arrived on the scene, recommended clemency and two days before Bush left office, the commutation was granted. The pardon attorney told inquiring reporters, “There’s not really a story here.”
On February 14, 2001, Margaret Colgate Love, a former U.S. Pardon Attorney, testified at a Hearing on Presidential Pardons conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, February 14, 2001. Love told the Committee:
I therefore had firsthand experience with the administration of the pardon power during the administrations of Presidents Bush and Clinton, and I am also familiar with pardoning practices in previous administrations. Finally, I have studied and written about the origins and rationale of the pardon power, and its evolving function in the federal criminal justice system … This system worked efficiently and for the most part quietly, resulting in over a hundred grants of pardon and commutation almost every year between 1900 and 1980 …While there was an occasional controversial grant, the only pardon-related scandals during the 20th century involved the rare situation that was handled outside of the normal process (Nixon and Iran-Contra).
There is certainly little doubt that the vast majority of presidential pardons have not produced a firestorm of protest and controversy. That is exactly why no intelligent person has ever once taken that position. But this trite observation carries a larger degree of irrelevance for at least three other reasons. First, the lack of public controversy is not a very good measure of the presence (or absence) of controversial behavior, not in a matter as technical, low-profile and behind-the-scenes as the clemency process. Second, administration officials and Department of Justice employees have long downplayed clemency controversies for obvious reasons. Public controversy can be accompanied by investigation, unwelcome scrutiny, greater accountability, demand for reform and additional restraints on bureaucratic discretion. Finally, clemency applications that go through the "normal process" are not immune from public criticism - or should not be. Folk-singer-celebrity-Democratic-fundraiser- extraordinaire Peter Yarrow filed an application for pardon and it went through "the normal process" ... in only seven weeks ... just before Jimmy Carter left office. Yarrow's pardon application skipped past hundreds of others filed much earlier. Likewise, Jimmy Hoffa's clemency application was received only one week before a commutation of sentence was granted. It appears that Ms. Love does not consider such examples to be "controversial." I respectfully disagree.
posted by P.S. Ruckman, Jr. | 1:07 AM
<< Home