Let me ask then. I’m kind of murky on the timeline of events. But do you think a simple statement of guilt and an apology on Clinton’s part when this stuff - the various affair allegations - first came out - would’ve helped him? Do you think the public would’ve been sympathetic? I mean before it got to the point even of the lawsuit and such.
I’m no legal expert. I don’t think an apology would have helped avoid the lawsuit. It was brought by a private citizen on her own initiative. As for the impeachment, it was initially an inquiry about Whitewater, and expanded to include Clinton’s affairs and other actions he took while in office. His supporters saw it as an attempt by Republicans to railroad Clinton out of office. In fact, the GOP lost five House seats in the 1998 elections and didn’t gain any seats in the Senate. The election was such a major embarassment to House speaker Newt Gingrich, who predicted the Republicans would gain as many as 30 seats, that he resigned his seat in 1999.
Because Trump’s decision to pardon Joe Arpaio clearly sends a signal to Trump’s associates who are now facing criminal investigations that they can be pardoned in exchange for their loyalty. It suggests that the president has the power and the intent to apply the law selectively, thereby weakening the rule of law. This cannot be said of Clinton, who pardoned people on his way out of office. That doesn’t mean Clinton’s pardons weren’t bad, but the consequences are potentially far more significant in Trump’s case than in Clinton’s.
I tend to think that history has proven more right than wrong on this one. Ever since Nixon, in to one degree or another we’ve had political ‘trials’ in response to various acts of wrongdoing in the White House, from Iran Contra to White Water to the Plame affair. I think Ford realized how fractious this country could become and didn’t want to have a precedent in which an opposition political party not only ousts a sitting president but throws him in jail. Yes, it could be done, but that doesn’t mean it’s wise to do it. Consider Trump’s threat to put Hillary Clinton in jail. Consider the fact that Trump made up a falsehood about Obama wiretapping his office during the campaign. We’re fortunate in that Jeff Sessions is of the opinion that we don’t throw political opposition into a prison cell, and we’re fortunate in that, no matter how much Congressional republicans disliked Obama, they didn’t want bogus charges tossed in his direction. There’s no precedent for a president using the law to go after his enemies. But I could see how things might be different if Obama had prosecuted George W Bush or Dick Cheney for manipulating intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. I think Ford knew how bitterly divisive politics in this country can be. We did fight a civil war after all.
Excellent post. Nixon ending up in jail would spark off a dangerous precedent in our country. I think if Nixon had been allowed to go to jail, our Union would be even more polarized than it is. The hatred of “Liberals” by Republicans would go even deeper than it is. Did Nixon deserve prison? Under the law, yes. But I’m of the mind that having to resign in disgrace, loss of all respect and prestige, being blacklisted by his party for the rest of his life, being labelled a crook for the rest of his life, and the fact Watergate hung around his neck like a millstone for the rest of his life was enough punishment. The man basically had the word **Crook **imprinted into his forehead like a proverbial Scarlet Letter. There are worse things than prison. He paid enough; the country suffered enough; it was time to close the book and move on to more important things.
That powerful people actually are required to obey the same laws unpowerful people have to obey? That no one is above the law?
While I can see a pragmatic - “yes, he deserves prison, but the cost is too high,” I absolutely cannot say that it would have been a bad precedent for a proven and (fairly) uncontroversially guilty president to face the same legal consequences a non-president would have faced.
Agree to disagree. I think the punishment he received was worse than Prison, anyway.
How about T. Woodrow Wilson’s pardon of George Burdick? That one was deplorable any way you look at it. The pardon was meant to push Burdick clear of Amdt. V, so that he could not withhold testimony based on self-incrimination. The goal was to uncover leakers in Treasury (Burdick was NY Tribune city editor).
Luckily, SCOTUS came through, ruling that Burdick could refuse the pardon, so the net result was positive – except that it left open the question of whether a pardon had to depend on a conviction.
I’m sure everyone understands the principle that no person - not even the president - is above the law. But politics is different to some degree. The people we elect are to some degree an extension of ourselves. To put a Richard Nixon in jail, to have the visual of America’s silent majority wearing a jump suit, would be a psychological shock. If I were president, I would only imprison an ex-president if I were confident that damn near 9 out of every 10 Americans not only were okay with it but WANTED it. There’s a reason Nelson Mandela wanted reconciliation over revenge. At its best, politics is a healthy debate about how our society should be managed; at its worst, it’s a non-violent form of warfare. Most times it’s a little bit of both.
At most he would have spent a month in jail. Maybe less.
Even leaving out the rest of the internet and social media, right from the beginning of this thread posters have been talking about commutations and pardons together. It’s not going to change. To me commuting Oscar Lopez Rivera is worse than any others mentioned.
And I’m not defending Arpaio’s pardon. I just think calling the worst ever is hyperbole. People want to say violating peoples right is worse than murder - there’s something wrong there. They say it is worse because he is an elected official but ignore congressmen pardoned for corruption. They rail against Trump’s motivation but ignore Clinton pardoning his brother or a person in jail for protecting him from prosecution.
This is not a discussion. It is an excuse for many on this board to critisize Trump - objectiveness be damned.
You left out the most compelling rationale, though, which is that Trump is using his pardoning power to weaken the judiciary going forward in his term. And considering that the rationale was already presented to you and yet you blatantly ignore it in your response suggests maybe you’re not really interested in much discussion either.
I am not ignoring it. My point is that if you consider that “using his pardoning power to weaken the judiciary going forward in his term” then why is Bill Clinton’s pardoning of Susan McDougal not as bad.
If you want to claim that McDougal’s is not as bad because it was as he was leaving office then my counter to that is that she was jailed on contempt for protecting Clinton during testimony. Seems kind of hinky to me. What about pardoning his brother. Kind of self-serving don’t you think?
And what do make of Clinton’s weakening the judiciary by the multitude of drug dealers pardoned throughout his term? Did that weaken the judiciary re: convictions and sentencing? I not claiming it did but the “Arpaio’s is the worst” don’t seem to want to discuss how their rational may apply to other Presidents.
And once again I am not disputing anyone’s reasoning of why Arpaio’s pardon was bad. I am disputing it was the WORST. To convince me of that you need to convince me that:
Contempt and detaining people suspected of being in the country illegally is worse than mass murder. Oh and someone said “What about all of the lives affected by Arpaio’s actions?” You don’t think murdering someone affects other people.
Some of you say what makes the contempt and civil rights violations so bad is he was an elected official. OK I can see that but is it worse than Congressmen using the Post Office for corruption?
Oh and one more thing. Some have talked about profiling and civil rights and I think that given Arpaio’s history of undeniable profiling may be misleading. In this case Arpaio was told he could not arrest illegal immigrants (both known and reasonably suspected) unless they had committed crime. Arpaio claiming he was enforcing Arizona’s human smuggling laws (an illegal immigrant smuggled themselves right? :rolleyes: ). So to be pedantic, the criminal contempt was for continuing to arrest people in the country illegally (or thought to be). Again - not to defend his methods which are reprehensible but we should be aware of what exactly he did to be guilty of contempt to fairly compare it to other pardons.