Lipsky cites Clinton's reliance on the entreaties of foreign officials who extolled Rich's contributions to Israeli charitable causes and civic or governmental projects. It is difficult to embrace that argument. Rich used wealth to make connections that gave him formidable chips to cash in when he needed help. Individuals having less wealth and influence were also prosecuted unfairly and arguably were just as deserving of relief but lacked the necessary chips. Presumably Clinton took that concern into account when he decided to pardon Rich.
Did the president also consider that Rich was (in the words of Senator Feingold) "a huge donor" to the Democratic Party? Whether the pardon decision was wise or ethical given that circumstance is the subject of legitimate debate, but the exercise is academic once the president leaves office. The pardon power is the president's alone to exercise. The Framers made the president's decision unreviewable, a notable exception to the Constitution's preference for checks and balances. The Constitution leaves pardon decisions to the president's conscience, such as it might be.
The debate about Holder's role is more salient, but the Constitution gives the pardon power to the president, not to Justice Department officials. If he greased the way to a pardon for a generous party donor, as his detractors charge, the grease stained his resume. On the other hand, when Jeralyn dissected the Rich pardon, she found no less an authority on criminality than Scooter Libby opining that Rich violated no laws.
If Holder helped an innocent man obtain a pardon, it's difficult to hold that accomplishment against him. Some familiar names were involved in the pardon discussion, although in different capacities than Holder, and they've testified about the decision-making process. As Jeralyn describes it:
Among the Clinton aides who testified were former counsel to former president Clinton Beth Nolan, former Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey and former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta. Former Deputy AG Eric Holder testified at an earlier hearing.
All said they were part of the Rich pardon discussions. Rich's pardon application was submitted by lawyer Jack Quinn in December, 2000 to the White House rather than to the Pardon Office. Quinn had told former Eric Holder and Beth Nolan of his intent to submit it directly to the White House. The Pardon Office had been ridiculously backed up since October and wasn't timely churning out the reviews. Clinton had expressed to his staff his desire to grant more pardons before he left office.
Also, since Rich hadn't been convicted, the aides testified the application wasn't one the Pardon Attorney likely would handle. Rather, the deputy attorney general, the White House counsel's office, and the President would be the appropriate ones to consider it.
Whatever one might think about the choice of Holder as Attorney General, his questionable decision to help Rich isn't a sufficient reason to oppose his nomination. Granted that it is not much of a standard for comparison, but Holder is no Alberto Gonzales, and he's considerably more sane than John Ashcroft.
