Pardon Me?

I've been thinking about this controversy over Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence. The Democrat in me (which is all of me), of course, is annoyed and finds this to be just another reason to hate the Current Occupant and Administration. But I think it's more complicated than that, and I have to disagree with Bill Clinton (blasphemy, I know, please don't tell him I said anything remotely contrary to him) that this situation is different from the pardons he issued just one the "facts."

Here's my thinking: if my party was in control of the White House (which it hopefully will be come January 2009) and in the "hot seat" (which it hopefully won't be), I know myself. I know that I would stand by a President/Administration I loved. I feel like I would think up a great justification for why my President was right to commute a sentence or pardon someone. I am loyal to the DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Minnesota's superior version of the DNC) in the same ways that true conservatives are loyal to Bush. So, while I disagree with Bush's decision to commute the sentence, I don't feel like I can be that outraged by it because scandals happen and who knows what the next administrations dirty laundry will be. It would be anticipatorily hypocritical to be excessively critical of this situation, being quite sure that if it were a DFLer in the same position, I would not feel the same.

This, of course, presents two problems. First, it maybe means I am way too jaded in that it sounds like I have accepted as an inevitable reality that politics and the White House equal scandal. Second, it may mean that my devotion to the party colors my ethics. I hope not. I don't want to be jaded or have questionable ethics. But, the President's powers includes the power to pardon whomever he wants (thank you BarBri Con Law review), and that goes for Dems and Republicans alike, whether I like it or not. I mean, President Bartlett pardoned Toby, which was absolutely a political move and also involved issues of national security/top secret White House affairs. And I found that to be a tear-jerker, beautiful moment of West Wing (but weren't they all?) So, how is that so very different than Scooter's situation, other than the fact that West Wing is only for pretend (would that it were not).

My dad also pointed out that perjury is trickier than it seems at first glance. If enough time passes and enough questions are asked, isn't just about anyone capable of perjury? You think you remember something just how it happened but you don't. No one knows more than the Criminal Defense Attorney Bar how fallible the human memory is and how it can so often lead to incorrect statements and conclusions.

Finally, are the Scooter's crimes felonies? I think so, since he was getting more than a year in the slammer. And he's still convicted- so that means he can't vote, right? As a matter of principle, I think that permanent felon disenfranchisement is unconstitutional but as long as that law sticks around, I don't mind one less Republican vote in 2008. But by that time, Bush may have taken the next step and pardoned Scooter. Or disenfranchised several thousand more black men in Florida. What an American Hero.