The Satirical Political Report is taking a rare respite from satire in order to address¬†a serious issue in a serious manner. We trust that we’ll be forgiven this brief departure from form, and wish to assure our faithful readers that we’ll be immediately returning to our¬†normal MO — taking a lighter look at the dark forces that currently threaten the planet.
The recent discussions about Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence seem to assume that Bush’s Constitutional powers somehow shield¬†the President from¬†legal accountability¬†for such actions.¬†However, such assumption fails to distingush between the absolute power to do an act, and absolute immunity for such act.¬†
While it is not debatable¬†that¬† Bush had the absolute power to¬†commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence, pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, it does not follow that the President himself is immune from criminal prosecution¬†if such action was part of a quid pro quo, or otherwise served to obstruct justice by, for example,¬†covering up the role of the President and/or Vice President in the Valerie Plame affair.
The President, under Article II, Section 2, also has the unquestioned power to nominate Supreme Court Justices, but would anyone seriously argue that the President would be shielded from criminal liability if he accepted a bribe to nominate a particular person to the High Court? 
Commenting on that investigation,¬†former federal prosecutor Jonathan Polkes told CNN’s “Burden of Proof“¬†that prosecutors would have to find a direct link between the contributions and the pardon to prove criminal wrongdoing:
“If theoretically, you had a videotape of Denise Rich telling President Clinton, ‘I’ll give $450,000 to your presidential library if you pardon my husband’ — if you can prove something like that, sure you would have a criminal case,” Polkes said.
The Framers, ever sensitive to the need for checks and balances, recognized the potential for abuse of the pardon power. According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: “In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to ‘pardon crimes which were advised by himself’ or, before indictment or conviction, ‘to stop inquiry and prevent detection.’ James Madison responded:¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†
“[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .
However, it is difficult to believe that Congress has either the will or the stomach to follow the impeachment path. Consequently, since Mr. Bush’s highly suspect commutation of Mr.¬†Libby’s¬†sentence¬†not only raises serious political issues, but legal ones as well, we would suggest that a criminal investigation is not only appropriate but necessary.
Memo to Patrick Fitzgerald: You have previously expressed outrage over Mr. Libby “throwing sand in your face.” Now that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have thrown the entire Sahara Desert into your face, it is¬†time to take a closer look at the “commute that doesn’t compute.”
