Reprinted from The Satirical Political Report http://satiricalpolitical.com
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?
Indeed, members of Congress – Randy "Duke" Cunningham, to cite just one recent example – are routinely prosecuted for exercising their Constitutional power to cast votes in exchange for valuable consideration.
More directly on point, Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich launched a criminal investigation in 2001 by the U.S Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White.
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:
Continued at: http://satiricalpolitical.com/...