Clemency Options Narrowing
In the aftermath of the commutation, everyone has returned to speculation about a full pardon for Scooter Libby. This was, of course, the mindset that overlooked the possibility of a commutation to begin with. Somewhat ironically, President Bush's post-commutation options are even more wide than the pre-commutation options. But Mr. Libby appears to have taken away several of them with the payment of the $250,000 fine levied against him.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the pardon power of the Constitution to include the power of the president to grant remissions of fines and forfeitures. As a result, Libby's payment eliminates the possibility that Bush will grant a 1) pardon and remission - a very common act in the history of pardons 2) a remission of the fine or 3) a partial remission of the fine.
Assuming Libby and his lawyers have information as good as anyone else concerning the prospects for the future - a safe assumption in my book - the payment seems to suggest that there was no expectation whatsoever on their part that a pardon and remission or a remission (partial or full) would follow. Why? Bush cannot remit a fine that has been already paid and the Supreme Court's decision in Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877) suggests Libby cannot have the $250,000 refunded even if a pardon were to follow. As the Court has put it, the pardon power cannot be used to extract funds from the public treasury once they are deposited.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the pardon power of the Constitution to include the power of the president to grant remissions of fines and forfeitures. As a result, Libby's payment eliminates the possibility that Bush will grant a 1) pardon and remission - a very common act in the history of pardons 2) a remission of the fine or 3) a partial remission of the fine.
Assuming Libby and his lawyers have information as good as anyone else concerning the prospects for the future - a safe assumption in my book - the payment seems to suggest that there was no expectation whatsoever on their part that a pardon and remission or a remission (partial or full) would follow. Why? Bush cannot remit a fine that has been already paid and the Supreme Court's decision in Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877) suggests Libby cannot have the $250,000 refunded even if a pardon were to follow. As the Court has put it, the pardon power cannot be used to extract funds from the public treasury once they are deposited.
posted by P.S. Ruckman, Jr. | 9:29 AM
<< Home