"I’ve written hundreds of stories, blog posts, magazine articles and, finally, a book on Blagojevich’s case. There was one sentiment I heard over and over again..."

"... which went something like, 'I know Blagojevich was guilty as hell but 14 years is insane.' That’s why President Donald Trump likely risks little political blowback by commuting the sentence of his onetime Apprentice contestant, even in the state that Blagojevich disgraced."

Writes Natasha Korecki in Politico.

And here's Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker, "The Trouble with Donald Trump's Clemencies and Pardons":

Authoritarianism is usually associated with a punitive spirit—a leader who prosecutes and incarcerates his enemies. But there is another side to this leadership style. Authoritarians also dispense largesse, but they do it by their own whims, rather than pursuant to any system or legal rule. The point of authoritarianism is to concentrate power in the ruler, so the world knows that all actions, good and bad, harsh and generous, come from a single source. That’s the real lesson—a story of creeping authoritarianism—of today’s commutations and pardons by President Trump....

[T]he pardons were entirely personal in origin.... A benevolent leader dispensed favors.... In this era of mass incarceration, many people deserve pardons and commutations, but this is not the way to go about it. 

Here's Wikipedia's list of Trump's pardons and commutations. Did Toobin just look at yesterday's announcements? It seems to me that Trump has granted clemency to some ordinary but deserving people caught in our "mass incarceration."

Toobin concludes:

All Trump has done is to prove that he can reward his friends and his friends’ friends. The chilling corollary is that he knows he can punish his enemies, too.

Granting clemency is a normal part of executive power, an explicit provision of the Constitution. Did Toobin indulge in this kind of "chilling corollary" reasoning when Obama was President?

By the way, why didn't Obama commute Blagojevich's sentence?