PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS

February 28, 2001

My name is Alan Raul, I am a partner at Sidley & Austin in Washington, D.C. I am testifying today in a personal capacity.

From 1986 through 1988, I was honored to serve as Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan. During my tenure in White House Counsel's Office, among other responsibilities, I assisted the Counsel and Deputy Counsel to the President in evaluating pardon applications submitted for consideration by the President.

In my experience, the pardon process was orderly and deliberate. I am not aware of any pardon applications being submitted to President Reagan other than through regular channels. Pardon applications were handled with the utmost care and seriousness, as befitting the President's authority under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution to exercise plenary "Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

It is my recollection and belief that the Justice Department and White House Counsel's Office ensured that no pardon application proceeded without all relevant points of view being reflected in the review process. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which a pardon would be considered without input from the prosecuting U.S. Attorney's Office and sentencing judge.

As I recall, the standard operating procedure for submission and consideration of pardon applications during the Reagan Administration was straightforward:

1. Applications were submitted to the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, following the passage of a substantial period of time after the applicant's conviction (usually a minimum of five years from conviction or release from prison).

2. The Pardon Attorney would assemble the relevant information and materials, conduct a field investigation seeking input from the knowledgeable parties (such as prosecuting attorneys, sentencing judges, etc.), and forward a recommendation to the Deputy Attorney General.

3. The Deputy (or Associate) Attorney General would forward a recommendation and the Pardon Attorney's memorandum to the White House Counsel's Office.

4. The White House Counsel's Office, primarily the Deputy Counsel to the President, would review the application and recommendations, and forward the Justice Department package to the President with a discussion of the material points together with a concurrence or disagreement with the Department's recommendation.

5. Key considerations for granting a pardon would be the applicant's demonstrated good conduct and exemplary life following the conviction, the nature of the crime and its relative seriousness, the applicant's acceptance of responsibility and remorse, the passage of time, the asserted need for the pardon, and the official recommendations in favor of the pardon.

In light of the extraordinary nature of pardons, where one individual can grant forgiveness or commute sentences meted out by the criminal justice system, it is appropriate that pardons be sparingly granted. It is my understanding that of all Presidents who issued pardons and commutations, President George Washington issued the fewest (16) and that President Reagan granted fewer pardons and commutations than any President in the twentieth century before him (406). President George H. W. Bush issued even fewer pardons (77), and as Governor of Texas, George W. Bush issued fewer pardons than any Texas Governor since the 1940's (16 through January 2000, compared to 70 for his immediate predecessor Ann Richards, 822 for two-term governor Bill Clements, and 1048 for John Connally, Texas governor from 1963-69).

President Bill Clinton issued 456 pardons and commutations during his two terms. The bulk of these clemency actions were issued in the last three years of his presidency -- 176 were issued on his last day in office.

For any President, it is imperative that the White House staff serve as a check against all of the special pleading that is inevitable from the friends, relatives and supporters of the President and his or her political party. It is for this reason that the President's subordinates must ensure that standard operating and vetting procedures are followed. Recommendations and requests will always come in directly to any White House and to any President. In nearly all cases, Presidents will have the good judgment and personal integrity to run the special pleading through the more objective sieves of White House and Justice Department lawyers and other advisers. The pardon power is, after all, a public trust not a personal perquisite of the President.

In my opinion, a President's approach to granting executive clemency reflects on the Presidential character, and reveals much about the President's respect for the rule of law and due process. The personal integrity and good character of the President is particularly tested in connection with executive clemency because the power is unilateral and unreviewable, and involves the ability to overturn judgments rendered by the criminal justice system on matters involving serious crimes committed against the people of the United States.

A President who disrespects the rule of law, and views the pardon power as essentially a personal prerogative rather than a public trust, will be in a position to exploit and abuse the process. The country has been fortunate that such abuses and exploitations of power have been exceedingly uncommon among American public servants at the highest level. For this reason, I believe that amending the Constitution to restrain the pardon power is neither necessary nor advisable. Instead, Presidents should be chosen by the people for their good character and worthiness to exercise such awesome powers as executive clemency. If honorable men and women are elected President, the pardon power will continue to serve as the safety valve and manifestation of public mercy that it has for over two centuries.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you.

—————————————————————————————