Redstate

Chuck Schumer, then and now.

By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The DSCC is apparently sending around an email which reads as follows:

Dear [Recipient,]

On Tuesday, Sen. Schumer sent an urgent message about President Bush commuting Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's sentence for lying to investigators and obstructing justice.

The response to that message has been astounding - tens of thousands of supporters have already let President Bush know that no one man should be above the rule of law.

This Monday the DSCC will hand deliver each and every message to the White House. We want to let Bush know we're appalled by this blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Please join the thousands of Americans who have already let Bush know this outrageous action won't be tolerated.

The day after Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence White House spokesman Tony Snow said that Bush's actions were simply "routine." Nothing could be further from the truth. Wiping away two and half years of jail time for a convicted felon should never be routine. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "The president's decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence is disgraceful." Let's make sure President Bush knows that what his administration considers routine is actually a disgrace.

Send a message to George Bush letting him know that this outrageous action won't be tolerated.

More below...

I should note two things about this story, in the interest of fairness. The first is that I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or another about the pardon of Scooter Libby. My feeling, really, is that you can't lie to investigators or obstruct justice even if there is no underlying crime. I suppose that there is a real question in a lot of people's minds as to whether Mr. Libby lied or genuinely forgot, but a jury seems to have concluded otherwise, and under our legal system that counts for something. I know a lot of people feel otherwise, and there are valid arguments for that - I don't have any disrespect for someone who comes to the opposite conclusion on the facts. It's just that personally, I've not felt a tremendous amount of sympathy for him.

The second is that, to Chuck Schumer's credit, he did speak out against one of the most egregious pardons in history; namely, Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich while he was on the lam:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York Sen. Charles Schumer said Monday former President Clinton's explanation of why he pardoned financier Marc Rich didn't convince him the pardon was right.

As he left the Association of Towns of the State of New York annual meeting at Manhattan's Hilton hotel, Schumer, New York's senior democrat, was asked if Clinton's op-ed piece Sunday in the New York Times was a creditable explanation.

"No," said Schumer. "To me there is no excuse for pardoning a fugitive from justice. You can't let somebody opt out of the system by running away, and opt into the system by being pardoned. Doesn't matter how weak the case might have been, doesn't matter how much charitable work the man did after he fled the country. He should be tried by the rules and play by the rules."

What is interesting to me, however, was Schumer's opinion at that time as to how the Senate should deal with the ridiculous pardon of Rich:

But where does that leave us going forward? All hundred of us in the Senate might disagree with this pardon, but there's a whole lot of nothing we can do about it. In the Constitution, the president's power to pardon is absolute. The president, in the wisdom of the founding fathers, can pardon anyone, for any reason at all. It is a power of the president that is kept in check only by the ballot box and the judgment of history. To change the Constitution requires careful thought and should not be based on one case or one moment in history. And a statutory framework requiring the president to follow certain steps before issuing a pardon would surely be unconstitutional.

So I think we should be leery of going overboard in launching new rounds of extended congressional investigations and hearings that could divert Congress from the work we need to accomplish this year. Investigations like this one have a way of spinning out of control. And before we know it, summer will be here and we'll still be focused on President Clinton's pardons. That, I think, would be a disservice to the American people.

* * *

If there are allegations of criminal wrongdoing, that is something for the proper authorities, not this committee, to look at. To be sure, the president may have unbounded power to grant a pardon, but that doesn't mean that those seeking pardons can do anything they want to get one.

In the end, I think history will judge some of the pardons we have seen in the last 30 years by many presidents quite poorly. But I hope that here in Congress we can start soon to focus on the future, and not let our quarrels with prior administrations mire us in the past.

Let's just say, at the end of the day, that I find it -interesting, shall we say? - that Senator Schumer is just fine at this time with making a big ruckus in the Senate over a pardon which - by his own admission - the Senate can *do nothing about*, just so that he can send out thinly veiled fundraisers to the masses. I also find it interesting that his new missive implies that the pardon of Libby will "not be tolerated" (twice!). What does this mean that Senator Schumer is prepared to do? Attempt to statutorily modify the pardon power, which by his own admission would be unconstitutional? Hold Congressional hearings on the matter? What, Senator Schumer, do you plan to do in order to "not tolerate" what President Bush has done?

If you're going to lather up the faithful, you should at least be honest about the scope of your intended action.