Former President Clinton, in an op-ed piece in the Sunday New York Times, proved himself to be an able defense lawyer in explaining why he pardoned Marc Rich. There’s no surprise in his abilities, but his reasons for the pardon are still less than believable and, while few doubt he had the authority to issue it, his lengthy explanation is finding commendably little support.

Mr. Clinton offered eight reasons for his pardons of Mr. Rich and his partner, Pincus Green, on charges in 1983 of racketeering and mail and wire fraud, stemming from their oil business. In sum, he concluded that various experts thought the men had done nothing improper, the charges should have been civil rather than criminal, their companies had already paid fines and Israeli officials thought Mr. Rich’s contributions to charitable causes were especially laudable. Certainly, these are mitigating issues, but on all but the last point they are issues that could have raised in court back in 1983. At least Mr. Clinton did not argue the men couldn’t afford decent lawyers at the time.

Instead, he serves as one in his commentary for both Mr. Rich and himself, seeking to explain away his decision by pointing out that other presidents have pardoned lots of people and have sometimes faced controversy because of it. But this isn’t a question of volume; it’s one of power and whether the president abused it. He says flatly that the $1.5 million Mr. Rich’s former wife has given to the Democratic Party and the large sum she gave to the Clinton Library did not figure into his decision at all. “There was absolutely no quid pro quo.”

No one can prove what were Mr. Clinton’s thoughts when he issued the pardon. But it is notable that he made what he knew was a controversial decision without the advice of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, though he knew she opposed it, and without telling Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder until the last moment, leaving him little time to review the case. He said Sunday that both should have been consulted before the decision was made. But of course this is a concession without meaning once he misused the powers of his office to issue the pardon.

The public largely stood by Mr. Clinton during his impeachment, despite his abominable behavior, and members of his party fought vigorously against the trial in the House. Defenders are largely absent now because there is extremely little to defend. Mr. Clinton left office with a small disgraceful act that will linger as part of his legacy.