The Pardon Problem

Tim F. taking note of Alberto Gonzalez's seeming penchant for defying his constitutional obligations with regard to testifying before congress (as Josh Marshall notes this isn't optional, it's illegal for him to just refuse to answer) in a full and accurate manner, draws my attention to this old debate:

George Mason, a distinguished Virginian who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a bill of rights, noted that “the President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardon for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discovery of his own guilt.”

In light of the Scooter Libby matter, obviously, such things need to be taken seriously. There have been some inappropriate pardons in the past, but pardoning your own subordinates for official misconduct undertaken in support of your political goals has opened up a whole new can of worms. Gonzalez and anyone else can lie, stonewall, refuse to comply as much as they like, secure in the knowledge that not a single person will serve a single minute in prison for anything they do on George W. Bush's behalf.

Comments

That's why impeachment is the only appropriate course at this point. Public opinion also favors it.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 9:40 AM

"In light of the Scooter Libby matter, obviously, such things need to be taken seriously. There have been some inappropriate pardons in the past, but pardoning your own subordinates for official misconduct undertaken in support of your political goals has opened up a whole new can of worms. Gonzalez and anyone else can lie, stonewall, refuse to comply as much as they like, secure in the knowledge that not a single person will serve a single minute in prison for anything they do on George W. Bush's behalf."

I fail to understand how this is a problem with pardon power.

Given that the executive has prosecutorial discretion, the problem would exist almost exactly as is even if there were no pardon power whatsoever in the Constitution.

Someone like Gonzales could lie, stonewall, and refuse to comply as much as they like as long as the executive declines to prosecute them.

Pardon power for runaway members of the executive only comes into play when the executive chooses to allow them to be prosecuted, as in the case of Libby.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 9:43 AM

Pardon power for runaway members of the executive only comes into play when the executive chooses to allow them to be prosecuted, as in the case of Libby.

What if they're impeached and convicted by the Senate?

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 9:51 AM

Bill, the pardon power doesn't extend to impeachment--it's right there in the Constitution . . .

Another way to avoid the pardon power is civil contempt--lock Gonzales up until he answers the questions. Because it's not criminal, it's not pardonable.

Posted by rea | July 26, 2007 9:58 AM

Bill, the pardon power doesn't extend to impeachment--it's right there in the Constitution . . .

I know, I was just prompting.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 10:00 AM

"What if they're impeached and convicted by the Senate?"

Read your Constitution. The pardon clause consists of:

he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

-----

Contra Matthew, I don't think the Constitution's pardon power is a mistake. I don't think he fully appreciates the benefits of a fully independent executive, subject only to political pressures and the blunt instrument of Congressional impeachment.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 10:01 AM

I don't think he fully appreciates the benefits of a fully independent executive, subject only to political pressures and the blunt instrument of Congressional impeachment.

Perhaps you don't appreciate the amount of damage to the Constitution a fully independent executive can do when he and his don't feel subjected to political pressures. There's such a thing as going off the rails, and genies getting out of bottles.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 10:07 AM

Contra Matthew, I don't think the Constitution's pardon power is a mistake. I don't think he fully appreciates the benefits of a fully independent executive, subject only to political pressures and the blunt instrument of Congressional impeachment.

What if the fully independent executive orders the assassination of his Congressional political opposition and then pardons all of the assassins? Then Congressional impeachment would be impossible because all of the proponents of the impeachment would be, well, dead.

Posted by Dan the Man | July 26, 2007 10:10 AM

As best I remember, at noon on Jan. 20, 2009 a new President will take over and W's pardon power will expire. If a Democract becomes President and Fredo has not yet been charged with anything, then he's toast.

Posted by ostap | July 26, 2007 10:10 AM

There are dozens of people who need to be impeached. Today. Congress could do it like a Moonie wedding. If they really wanted to.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 26, 2007 10:11 AM

Re "I don't think he fully appreciates the benefits of a fully independent executive, subject only to political pressures and the blunt instrument of Congressional impeachment."
---------
What about the benefits of a fully functioning Bill of Rights -- which is not subject to violation by legal sophistry and contempt for law?

Re Checks and balances, abuse of prosecutatorial discretion would involve a conspiracy and corruption among many US Attorneys -- and it would require all those Attorneys keeping silent. Firing of Attorneys who protest would also be open to view.

Whereas abuse of the pardon power can be done solely by the President -- and with impunity. Moreover, it gives him a strong hold over subordinates once they become involved in a criminal enterprise --you haven't seen Scooter Libby speaking out of turn, have you?

How do you impeach a President when much of the Congress is filled with Republicans just as crooked as he is?

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 10:12 AM

"Perhaps you don't appreciate the amount of damage to the Constitution a fully independent executive can do when he and his don't feel subjected to political pressures."

Well, given that 218 years of fully independent executives haven't managed to do any significant damage to the Constitution, I think I'm appreciating the matter quite adequately.

Additionally, I'll note that whether or not the current administration feels subjected to political pressure or not, they are indeed quite subject to it. Ignoring political pressure doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Actions have consequences, as we saw in 2006, and are likely to see again in 2008.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 10:16 AM

"What if the fully independent executive orders the assassination of his Congressional political opposition and then pardons all of the assassins? Then Congressional impeachment would be impossible because all of the proponents of the impeachment would be, well, dead."

Similarly, what if Nancy Pelosi shot Bush and Cheney and pardoned herself after taking office?

-----

Actually, one of the benefits of an independent executive in our Constitution is that in protecting the executive from criminal prosecution, it makes murderous scenarios far less likely. Officials of the Roman Republic were subject to prosecution after their terms of office were up, which provided a big incentive for political murder scenarios.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 10:24 AM

RE Petey's comment "given that 218 years of fully independent executives haven't managed to do any significant damage to the Constitution"
---------

I imagine a Roman citizen saying the same thing upon hearing that Julius Caesar had crossed the Rubicon.

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 10:24 AM

And fewgawdsakes, Dan the Man, don't use blockquotes to quote other commenters. Refer to Strunk and White for further detail.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 10:26 AM

whether or not the current administration feels subjected to political pressure or not, they are indeed quite subject to it.

Are they? To be subject to it, you have to care. The 'administration' doesn't seem to care all that much about what happens to the GOP after them. As with any con, large or small, loyalty is a one way street, and the most loyal confederates of the con man get screwed the worst in the end.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 26, 2007 10:27 AM

Actions have consequences, as we saw in 2006, and are likely to see again in 2008.

I think this somewhat naively presupposes that one side is Good and the other Bad. You kinda sound like a "let the market sort it out" guy when, as in the so-called free market, the game is more than a little rigged. If one side can get away with lawless behavior the other will try to do so as well, and succeed. Looking at all 218 years is less relevant than looking at the past 50 or so. Much of the criminality or corruption in federal government today derives from the U.S.'s post-WWII modus operandi and the vastly expanded powers of the executive branch in the name of national/global security. The current attack on the Constitution is pretty much a direct product of that. If you can't see worrisome developments in that light you're not paying attention IMO. I think both sides have learned or are learning how to sidestep political pressures to serve short term ends and protect themselves and their friends at the expense of the democratic will. There are very few individual consequences for doing so. One party benefiting in the short run from appearing only less corrupt than the other will not root out corruption. And there are ways to abuse the Constitution that would be very difficult to reverse.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 10:32 AM

Oh please. You take the utterly irrelevant Libby thing as a crisis, but when Clinton pardoned FALN terrorists in order to pander for votes in NYC, you yawned. There's something deeply wrong with your sense of proportion.

Posted by James Robertson | July 26, 2007 10:36 AM

The problem isn't so much with the pardon power, as it is with our having decided that impeachment is such a 'blunt instrument', to be used rarely if at all. We might not want to dissolve government as often as parliamentary govs do, but I don't understand why impeachment is seen as so 'beyond the pale' as it is. Republicans didn't see it that way in '98, and - although their impeachment of Clinton deserved to fail - they had a point.

BTW, if Bush wasn't term-limited (and didn't have Dead End Dick as a VP), he might be subject to political pressure more than he is. Not the case, though.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 26, 2007 10:37 AM

"To be subject to it, you have to care."

Not at all. In the short-term, they've entirely lost the ability to pass legislation. In the long-term, they're helping to bring about the destruction of their political coalition.

Those are both quite real consequences, whether the administration cares about them or not.

Furthermore, they need to keep a third of Congress to sustain vetoes and remain in office.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 10:40 AM

but when Clinton pardoned FALN terrorists in order to pander for votes in NYC, you yawned.

Why would Clinton need to pander for votes in NYC? It goes like 90% Democratic.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 10:41 AM

whether or not the current administration feels subjected to political pressure or not, they are indeed quite subject to it.

Shorter Bush: "Top o' the world, Ma!"

Posted by jonnybutter | July 26, 2007 10:45 AM

The problem is the pardon power is one of the few Constitutional powers that has no checks or ways to be overturned or blocked. I can see a good case for requiring the Senate to ratify pardons or giving it the ability to overturn a pardon with a 2/3 vote or something or just exempting officials who served in the executive branch during that President's term from pardons.

Posted by Ron | July 26, 2007 10:48 AM

"I don't understand why impeachment is seen as so 'beyond the pale' as it is."

I'd say it's a consequence of two things: the two thirds requirement for conviction, and the de facto continuance of partisan political control of the executive after conviction.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 10:48 AM

Those are both quite real consequences, whether the administration cares about them or not.

Yo Petey, that's great, except that the damage will possibly have been done. We're not fretting about the future of the Republican Party. The future of the Constitution is the issue. It's called precedent.

Furthermore, they need to keep a third of Congress to sustain vetoes and remain in office.

Given that 30% of any electorate is certifiably insane, I'd say they needn't worry.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 10:48 AM

"Shorter Bush: "Top o' the world, Ma!"

The time I worry about Cagney-esque scenarios is between the '08 elections and inauguration day. If they're going to bomb Iran, that's when they'll do it. Those 3 months are when they're really free from political pressure.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 10:58 AM

In the long-term, they're helping to bring about the destruction of their political coalition.
....real consequences, whether the administration cares about them or not.

Yes, real consequences - for the coalition, and for the country. Not so much for Bush and Cheney themselves - although they surely would like to have passed some legislation in this congress. But the point about a rogue executive - which is the subject here - is that they have gigantic personal power and can be virtually unfettered for a fixed period. Not OK.

Furthermore, they need to keep a third of Congress to sustain vetoes and remain in office.

Which they have done for the rest of their term, despite having been extraordinarliy unpopular, inept and, frankly, impeachable. I'm not nearly as sanguine as Petey about this 'self-correcting' business. Bush and Cheney can do enormous additional damage to the country in their remaining time with very little political support from the country or congress. Keep the pardon power, but dust off the countervailing impeachment power - never take it 'off the table'. Perhaps it even needs to be amended.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 26, 2007 11:11 AM

Shorter versiom: it matters quite a bit whether or not said Rogue cares about the political consequences of his actions.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 26, 2007 11:13 AM

The time I worry about Cagney-esque scenarios is between the '08 elections and inauguration day. [bomb Iran]

Me too, actually, which would bolster your point. But the fact is that they already have the third+ in the Senate, and really don't seem to care about consequences (other than impeachment) of any kind NOW. They just don't.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 26, 2007 11:22 AM

but when Clinton pardoned FALN terrorists in order to pander for votes in NYC, you yawned.

Dude, I was eighteen years old when that happened and didn't have a blog. You have no idea whether or not I yawned. I'm not sure I even realized that happened. I was saying at dinner Tuesday night with a friend that I'd just been reminded of that incident the week before and it seemed pretty outrageous.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 26, 2007 11:29 AM

"I'm not nearly as sanguine as Petey about this 'self-correcting' business. Bush and Cheney can do enormous additional damage to the country in their remaining time with very little political support from the country or congress."

I agree entirely that Bush and Cheney can do enormous additional damage to the country in their remaining time with very little political support from the country or congress.

That's why I didn't vote for them.

-----

My only real point here is the Constitutional pardon power is not an appropriate target of the ire at the current administration.

If we're going to have an executive independent of the legislature, and one that already holds prosecutorial discretion, pardon power seems eminently reasonable to me.

While part of me would like to see many members of the current administration put in jail, or perhaps drawn and quartered, I generally think that would be bad for the Republic. The correct solution for executive misconduct is political retribution, even if that is less immediate, less direct, and less emotionally satisfying.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 11:33 AM

I too was in my teens when it happened so of course I had little opinion at the time, and you should always take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, and I don't even understand how pardoning people who set off bombs in NYC would have appealed to New Yorkers, et cetera ad infinitum, but is this what you're talking about? No quid pro quo was alleged, Hillary ran against it, none of those pardoned had been charged in connection with any deaths, and they had already served at least 19 years, longer sentences than most people convicted of similar crimes? It seems like almost the least objectionable use of the pardon power I can imagine. Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Cyrus | July 26, 2007 11:47 AM

"The problem is the pardon power is one of the few Constitutional powers that has no checks or ways to be overturned or blocked. I can see a good case for requiring the Senate to ratify pardons or giving it the ability to overturn a pardon with a 2/3 vote or something or just exempting officials who served in the executive branch during that President's term from pardons."

If you want to circulate a petition calling for pardons to become effective 14 days after Congress next meets only if 2/3rds of both house don't vote to overturn them, I'd consider signing your petition. It seems as if that would eliminate such abuses as the Marc Rich pardon without broader deleterious effects.

But I wouldn't support the 'exempting officials who'd served in the executive branch' portion for the reasons identified above.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 11:57 AM

The correct solution for executive misconduct is political retribution, even if that is less immediate, less direct, and less emotionally satisfying.

I'm sorry, but this just strikes me as wrong wrong wrong. The correct solution for political miscalculation is political retribution. Miscalculation entails pursuing agendas against the majority opinion. Bush/Cheney and the Republicans are "unpopular" and therefore lose the next election, fine. But if they're also criminals? Political misconduct, i.e. corruption and criminality, must - must - be dealt with judicially (or through impeachment). Otherwise where is your rule of law. If the only penalty for committing crimes against the state is losing office, then no one ever has any clear idea of where politics ends and lawlessness begins. NO guilt is ever admitted to; it's all "just politics." The deeply unsatisfying thing you allude to is never having to concede that you're being accused in good faith. You just say the other side is playing politics. That's incredibly corrosive to people's idea of basic justice and fairness.

So it strikes me as a perfect recipe for politicizing the entire justice system, and god help us when that finally oh wait.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 12:30 PM

I'd say the Constitution has not served the country as well as it might have in 200+ years, but especially not in the post-war years (with exceptions, of course), and even more so not in the last 25. Tinkering with the pardon power would change the system, but I'm guessing MY brings it up as part of his occasional series about the *whole* system. For example, the Iraq war is a world-historical, non-abstract, non-reversable (linear) event which almost certainly wouldn't have happened absent the Electoral College anomoly, and would not be continuing now absent our profoundly undemcratic Senate. (The problem with anti-democracy is not that it's 'conservative', but that it's *arbitrary* - movement conservatism is not about conservatism at all: it's about entropy, drift). The fact that this catastrophe happened, as well as the general sqandering of our wealth at a critical time, as well as the many assaults on liberalism itself, will have a very big effect on what you can vote about and why for many years into the future. These things take a net-toll. Brilliant as Madison et. al. were, I would venture to say that they were under no illusion that men of bad faith (like the Current Occupant) could pervert the system if they were really determined to. I'm for making it harder for them, which would generally result in *more* politics (eg, a more democratic Senate), not less.

I don't want to see Bush and Cheney drawn and quartered - I want to see them impeached and, hopefully, removed - but impeached, certainly. I have to agree with MY on one thing: it is absurd for an administration which has lost the confidence of the vast majority of the people in the country and of the political class (not to mention the rest of the planet) to be un-removable. It's like leaving a burst appendix in the body because of a rule which says that surgeries happen only every six months. Obviously, we're talking about a radical change, but...isn't this a good time to be thinking about such things? Even notwithstanding the fact that we're probably going to have a Democratic pres. next time? I say 'yes'.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 26, 2007 1:07 PM

"Political misconduct, i.e. corruption and criminality, must - must - be dealt with judicially ... Otherwise where is your rule of law."

Given that the executive is responsible for prosecuting violations of the law, I'm not sure you're entirely clear on the particulars of our constitutional system. But one could gather that from some of your other postings.

The executive can be dealt with judicially only if the executive chooses to do so. See the relevent examples from Watergate for more detail. If the executive behaves criminally and chooses not to deal with itself judicially, the solutions available are indeed only political.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 1:08 PM

"Obviously, we're talking about a radical change, but...isn't this a good time to be thinking about such things?"

Frankly, I don't see it. The current administration is pursuing some incredibly bad policies, but I see that as a failure of politics, not a failure of the constitutional system. A good structural system doesn't guarantee that you'll always have good governance.

I'm actually a fan of separate branch system for a country the size of America - I think a parliamentary system would cause some problems here - and once you accept a separate branch system, you're going to end up with administrations like the current one which are unpopular, but which still remain in office.

If you want constitutional reform, I'd certainly be behind an effort to end the small state bias in the Senate, but I have trouble seeing how that ever gets enacted. More realistically, I'd be strongly in favor of an effort at the beginning of the next Senate to pass an organizing resolution that did away with super-majoritarian cloture requirements. That's almost a viable idea, and it would make a big difference.

In a less sexy vein, I think the most important constitutional reform which could be passed in a non-partisan manner would be a measure like Norm Ornstein's to ensure a better succession system in the event that someone nukes Washington. In an age of terrorism, it seems a pressing concern, and under current measures, we'd likely end up without a functional government for a while, which would open up the door to a semi-permanent military government.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 1:22 PM

As best I remember, at noon on Jan. 20, 2009 a new President will take over and W's pardon power will expire. If a Democract becomes President and Fredo has not yet been charged with anything, then he's toast.

Bush will give a blanket pardon for EVERYONE who was involved in his administration for EVERY possible or potential crime they may have committed while employed at the White House. It won't be limited to a few people like Libby who will finally get his full pardon, but will be to everyone for everything!

And Republicans will cheer, gloating that this will torpedo any Democratic attempts by a new administration to punish the guilty or force them to testify about what crimes were committed.

Not that Hillary will have any desire to do that if she's elected. No! It'll be "let the past stay in the past and sweep it all under the rug."

The problem with that is that it sets a horrible precedent, just as the criminals in the Iran-Contra scandal getting away with it just set the stage for their eventual return to power, where they did everything 10 times worse than they did the first time.

Posted by Cugel | July 26, 2007 1:22 PM

"Tinkering with the pardon power would change the system"

And again, I think it's somewhat clear that it wouldn't change the system in any fundamental manner. Since the executive can avoid prosecuting members of the executive if it so chooses, pardon power is a minor part of the equation.

If the executive wishes to avoid exposing its members to criminal charges, it would still have the tools to do so even without pardon power.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 1:32 PM

I'd be strongly in favor of an effort at the beginning of the next Senate to pass an organizing resolution that did away with super-majoritarian cloture requirements.

Abso-friggin-lutely. That would be something. And I'm not necessarily arguing for a parliamentary system, but do think that what we have now is just incredibly creaky. If impeachment was not so rare, there might be political pressure out in the country to do it (when warranted) more often. The people who hate and fear it, and see it as a crisis rather than a solution to a crisis, are generally in DC, not beyond the beltway.

- So it strikes me as a perfect recipe for politicizing the entire justice system, and god help us when that finally oh wait.

- If the executive behaves criminally and chooses not to deal with itself judicially, the solutions available are indeed only political.

There's a missing distinction here: 'politics' and 'partisanship' don't mean the same thing. The founders put a lot of faith in politics but feared partisanship ('faction'). Impeachment is indeed a political act, but ought not properly be called (or be) 'partisan'. If it were simply partisan, then it wouldn't be the quasi-judicial process it is; you would just vote to remove the pres. or whoever and that would be it. The problem we have is rules and clauses which abet faction, not politics. More politics = good.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 26, 2007 1:52 PM

"Tinkering with the pardon power would change the system"
And again, I think it's somewhat clear that it wouldn't change the system in any fundamental manner.

Agreed (that's why I said 'tinkering'). I was less than clear.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 26, 2007 1:55 PM

Given that the executive is responsible for prosecuting violations of the law, I'm not sure you're entirely clear on the particulars of our constitutional system. But one could gather that from some of your other postings.

Please. I'd already mentioned impeachment as the only recourse vis a vis the executive himself and his underlings. But that only gets them out of office: they then need to be prosecuted for actual crimes, was my point. The executive is of course only indirectly responsible for prosecuting violations, so you're apparently assuming that the AG or whomever would/should never act independently of him. I'm not really sure, it just sounds like you want to make the pedantic point that the executive can technically, temporarily get away with criminal behavior if he wants to, provided DOJ is in lockstep with him. Okay:

If the executive behaves criminally and chooses not to deal with itself judicially, the solutions available are indeed only political.

So nobody's really disagreeing with that, given an toady AG like Gonzales. I was objecting to your apparent satisfaction with that reality. Our justice system hinges on a DOJ that can act at least relatively independently of the will of the executive, and potentially against his personal interests. When the AG is just a political tool and knows it you can do pretty serious harm before any political solution manifests itself. When the executive can essentially pardon himself (or when Ford pardons Nixon in the name of "healing") you need to seriously revisit the wisdom of allowing executive pardons. You may think Watergate worked itself out just as it should have; I think Nixon and Ford did permanent harm to the Constitution by reinforcing the idea that the president is above the law.

There's a big distinction between appointing people with their own brains to prosecute (and judge) criminals, and expecting them to only prosecute the criminals you think they should, or sentence them according to your personal preferences a la Scooter Libby. Obviously the system can and will be gamed, but we're talking about systematic abuse in bad faith here, aren't we (by more than one president I hasten to add)?

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 2:03 PM

Shorter version: the pres. and his cabinet swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, not each other. The correct, ultimate response to violating the Constitution is not merely political retribution.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 2:11 PM

Is it asking too much for you to spell-check at least the names of people your posts are about?

Gonzales, dang it.

Posted by Nell | July 26, 2007 2:22 PM

Petey,

I think you're missing some important points regarding political corruption and criminality. Its true that the political consequences for the Republican party have already been quite severe and will probably be so again in 2008. But that is not enough. There are two reasons why I think criminal prosecution would be valuable here:

First, there are individual actors that have benefited personally from the Bush administration and political consequences for the Republican party as a whole will not deter similar persons in the future. These people need to pay personally for their actions.

Secondly, criminal prosecutions have important (and beneficial) political ramifications. First, most of the population isn't paying close enough attention. But a criminal prosecution is an clear indication to them that hey, this guy seriously screwed up. Look at Nixon versus Reagan. I imagine 25-30% of the public will always say Nixon was a good president. But probably over 50% feel that way about Reagan. I believe part of this is b/c people know that Nixon had to resign to avoid impeachment. (or rather they know that he got in serious trouble, even if they don't know the details) If a party suffers the impeachment or criminal prosecution of high profile members, that will stick in the minds of a large middle sector of the voting public for quite a while. Furthermore, the same people have a habit of resurfacing later. And the Republicans love to give young people important jobs so that they can have long, influential careers (I guess). How many Monica Goodings are there in the administration that will pop up to haunt us 20 years down the road? Find the bad apples and prosecute as many of them as you can now and you won't have to worry about this as much.

Posted by mpowell | July 26, 2007 2:45 PM

"Dude, I was eighteen years old when that happened and didn't have a blog. You have no idea whether or not I yawned. I'm not sure I even realized that happened. I was saying at dinner Tuesday night with a friend that I'd just been reminded of that incident the week before and it seemed pretty outrageous."

I wasn't clear, but it was something of a "collective" you, as in "the left". At the time, none of Clinton's allies said much - just as none of Bush's allies are saying much now.

And just to be clear, Libby has not been pardoned - his sentence has been commuted. There's a fairly big difference.

Posted by James Robertson | July 26, 2007 4:10 PM

"Pardoning your own subordinates for official misconduct undertaken in support of your political goals has opened up a whole new can of worms."

Matt is probably too young to remember, but this ain't exactly a "new" can of worms. Like father like son. Bush's father is the one who actually opened that old can of worms when he issued 6 pardons of convicted Iran-Contra criminals who could easily have implicated Bush himself.

Despite records showing that Bush attended at least 17 meetings at which the "diversion" of funds to the contras was discussed, Bush claimed that that he was "out of the loop" and knew nothing about it. Even George Schultz said he knew about it. Bush escaped being charged, but who knows what would have come out if any of those 6 convicted criminals started to talk to get out of jail time.

Giving the president the power to pardon members of his own administration is tantamount to putting the president above the law, which is fundamentally unAmerican. Throughout American history, all of our previous presidents had enough integrity not to exploit that loophole in the Constitution -- until the Bush Family got into the White House.

Posted by Junius Brutus | July 26, 2007 5:48 PM

"I imagine a Roman citizen saying the same thing upon hearing that Julius Caesar had crossed the Rubicon."

Indeed.

Posted by Junius Brutus | July 26, 2007 5:50 PM

I'm actually a fan of separate branch system for a country the size of America - I think a parliamentary system would cause some problems here

The only Democracy larger than the U.S., India, uses a parliamentary system. So do many of the next largest - Japan, Germany, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Italy. The large democracies with presidential systems - Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines - aren't especially noted for their democratic stability.

What exactly is the basis for this claim? It seems like the claim that a single payer health care system may work for France, but the US is so much bigger it surely won't work for us. Since the US is by far the largest developed country, this is basically just an excuse for exceptionalism which has no basis.

Posted by John | July 27, 2007 3:17 PM