Obama has granted pardons or clemency to well over 100 people while in office. He has directed the DOJ to fill the pipeline of clemency cases for him to review before he leaves office, with a focus on people sentenced under harsher guidelines that were revised while he was in office.

Obama won't pardon Snowden not because Snowden doesn't have the right friends. He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move. Everyone can get behind pardoning someone sentenced to life for shoplifting under a three strikes law. Snowden is much more divisive.

He cannot pardon him right now. That would be too controversial in the US, and it might reflect on Clinton. But after the elections, or in the last month of his presidency, he might do this without consequenses.

> He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move.

If that were important in granting pardons, Clinton wouldn't have pardoned Mark Rich. Those politically-opposed to Obama will remain so regardless of what he does, so he couldn't care less.

The bigger problem is that Snowden hasn't even been interrogated by the federal government, let alone tried, so it's difficult to really know what they'd be pardoning him for. Publishing the leaks is one thing, but if he's given access to foreign powers to information that has not been made public, that's another.

In the Marc Rich case, Clinton had a pretty good idea of what the upper bound of the crime being excused was. Also: he shouldn't have pardoned Rich, is I think the consensus at this point.

I don't think the first point is an obstacle. Pardons can be conditional and limited to a specific (alleged) offense.

Clinton later stated in public he regretted that decision and the damage it did to his legacy.

It is always amazing to me when politicians say they "regret" an action, or "take responsibility" for a vote (see Clinton's statements on Iraq since 2014).

What does it even mean, apart from lip service to those who disagree with their vote? Politicians don't hold personal responsibility for the fallout of their policies, so it is just rhetoric intended to neutralize your negative opinions of them.

> What does it even mean, apart from lip service to those who disagree with their vote?

Just what you suspect it does: nothing.

Even if you think the apology was insincere and did nothing to ameliorate the harm of the pardon, at the very least the fact that Clinton was forced to apologize is evidence that, contrary to the assertion above, political reaction is "important in granting pardons."

Have you ever made a mistake? Did you apologize afterwards? Was that apology meaningful?

and it means exactly nothing, he knew damn well when signing who he is freeing. criminal was set free, paid a hefty sum/big favor to somebody and that is all that matters

Obama and Bill Clinton are the same person now?

He also may genuinely feel the guy is a criminal.

As opposed to the non-criminals who receive presidential pardons?

Presumably if the President decides to pardon someone, as opposed to commuting their sentence, it's indicative of a feeling that they shouldn't have been prosecuted or punished in the first place. So there's at least some reason to question whether they're really criminals or not, particularly if they haven't been tried and convicted of anything before receiving a pardon.

Commutation of sentences is actually much more common, particularly at the state level, because it doesn't really carry with it any indication that the person didn't commit a criminal act (and thus is less politically risky), only that the punishment was either too severe or that there's no reason to continue with it. I believe it also doesn't block further civil penalties or suits, although I'm not clear whether a Presidential pardon actually does (haven't ever seen any examples of that).