The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

When Donald Trump issued a tweet reminding everyone that as president he has “the complete power to pardon,” did he mean to suggest that he can pardon himself? Or simply to boast that he can issue pardons without consulting any other authority or facing any consequences?

The impact of Trump’s provocative statement — along with news accounts suggesting he may issue a flurry of pardons to stonewall special counsel Robert Mueller — forced a denial from his lawyer Jay Sekulow. But whatever impulse propels him now, someone ought to tell Trump that while the pardon power is indeed a solo prerogative of his office, it isn’t quite absolute. And should he appear to use that power for a corrupt purpose, such as obstruction of justice, he could place himself in serious legal jeopardy. Not only could he be impeached, since the Constitution specifically prohibits pardoning any impeached official, but he might just be criminally prosecuted as well.

If Trump has any doubts about that possibility, he should ask Bill Clinton or James Comey — or his own Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Within weeks after President Clinton pardoned the fugitive oil trader Marc Rich, on his final day in office, that widely denounced decision became the subject of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department. Acting on the premise that Rich might have bribed Clinton by channeling political contributions via his ex-wife Denise, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White announced the probe’s launch on February 15, 2001.

White House won't rule out pardons on Russia

A Clinton appointee, White was outraged by the pardon, like many of her colleagues in law enforcement, and determined to settle the score. Her office issued scores of subpoenas to the former president’s associates, donors, and friends, as well as to the Clinton Foundation, while FBI agents conducted dozens of interviews across the country, seeking any evidence that Clinton had sold the Rich pardon.

As for Clinton, he gritted his teeth and cooperated with the investigation, which added fresh legal bills to the enormous debt he already owed his attorneys.

Years later, after Comey had replaced White as U.S. Attorney, the pardon investigation finally sputtered to a close in 2005 when the government gave up looking for evidence that didn’t exist. (I examined the real motivation behind the Rich pardon, which had become obvious long before Comey closed the investigation, in my recent book Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton.)

The Rich pardon probe went nowhere, slowly. Yet for Trump its outcome isn’t nearly as important as the precedent it established. A president may issue a pardon to anyone (except perhaps himself), but if his purpose is corrupt then he is not necessarily exempt from prosecution.

Nobody appears to have disagreed with that judgment at the time, least of all the Congressional Republicans who were pursuing their own enthusiastic investigation of the Clinton pardons.

Among the prominent lawmakers who endorsed the pardon inquiry was none other than Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL), who offered his own theory of the case to ABC News: “If a person takes a thing of value for themself [sic] or for another person that influences their decision in a matter of their official capacity, then that could be a criminal offense.” And in principle, any criminal motive for a pardon could leave the president equally culpable.

Perhaps someone should ask Sessions on the record whether he still believes a pardon can be a criminal act — before Trump fires him.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court

Youtube Screenshot

The right-wing freakout over peaceful protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices and chalk on the sidewalk in front of Republican senators’ homes, built around the seeming belief that any kind of protest at all is an act of violence, is actually a piece of classic right-wing projection. Conservatives assume that all protests feature intimidation and menace, bellicose threats, and acts of violence, because they themselves know no other way of protesting, as we’ve seen over the past five years and longer—especially on Jan. 6.

So it’s not surprising that the right-wing response to protests over the imminent demise of the Roe v. Wade ruling so far is riddled with white nationalist thugs turning up in the streets, and threats directed at Democratic judges. Ben Makuch at Vice reported this week on how far-right extremists are filling Telegram channels with calls for the assassination of federal judges, accompanied by doxxing information revealing their home addresses.

Keep reading... Show less

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Youtube Screenshot

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is pushing a new conspiracy theory centered around the food and baby formula shortage currently plaguing the United States.

During a recent appearance on the far-right broadcast InfoWars, the Republican lawmaker echoed the bizarre claims of conspiracy theorists as she suggested that Democratic lawmakers are responsible for torching food facilities to create shortages. According to Rolling Stone, the latest theories appear to be based on ordinary fires that actually do occur.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}