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?