Pardons and M-o-n-e-y

Bill Clinton says he had no idea that his brother-in-law, attorney Hugh Rodham, took money to lobby for presidential pardons for two convicted felons, though he doesn’t deny he knew of Rodham’s involvement in both cases. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) says she knew nothing about her brother’s activities, though she had heard “rumors,” and was “heartbroken and shocked” when she found out. Both Clintons say they asked Rodham to return the $400,000 he was paid for his intervention on behalf of convicted drug dealer Carlos Vignali and Almon Glenn Braswell, who was convicted in 1983 of perjury and mail fraud. Rodham says he has returned the money, but that hardly disposes of the matter.

Clinton maintains that all of the 176 pardons and commutations he granted on his last day in office were merited, either to moderate what he saw as excessively harsh sentences or because he concluded that the recipients of his clemency had redeemed themselves through good works. The falsity of that assertion grows more apparent by the day.

More than a score of the pardons Clinton granted were the result of direct appeals to the White House, bypassing the usual review by the Justice Department and with little or no notice to the federal prosecutors who knew the most about the cases. Vignali benefited from the ability of his father, a Los Angeles businessman and large contributor to the Democratic Party, to get prominent public figures to write letters or make calls in his son’s behalf. Federal prosecutors fear that the Braswell pardon could jeopardize a current investigation of him involving other criminal allegations.

The common thread in the most controversial of the cases isn’t merit, unless merit is spelled M-O-N-E-Y. Access and influence were gained through donations to political campaigns--or the Clinton presidential library--or by the intervention of a Clinton friend or relative. One such relative was Roger Clinton, who unsuccessfully asked his brother for pardons or commutations for eight to 10 persons he knew.

It’s no secret that the ethical stoplights in the Clinton White House often worked erratically. On his final day in office they appear to have failed completely.

Congressional hearings into what was evidently a sweeping abuse of the president’s clemency power will resume next week. Meanwhile, the U.S. attorney’s office in New York is quietly continuing its inquiry. Whether laws were broken remains to be seen. There can be no doubt, though, that a gross breach of faith has occurred.