On Presidential Pardons and Libraries
Nov. 18th, 2004 11:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearToday's 'Post has an interesting read on how the donations to the Presidential Libraries (in Clinton's case, totalling $165million) aren't things that have to actually registered and made public knowledge, even though the public (in this case, the national archives) is managing the site once its built.
It shows, by mentioning the case where a sizeable donation came about from the wife of someone who received a last-minute pardon from Clinton, that its one of those "soft-money" cases where favors can be bought by a standing President.
To my mind, I'm concerned about the use of the Presidential pardon, particularly in the case where the illegal activity was happening "for the good of the nation" and/or "under orders of the President". The example that comes to mind is Weinberger's pardon by Bush Sr., for the illegal activities of Iran-Contra under Reagan.
Bush doesn't deny the guilt, which I suppose is a good thing. In fact, the main reason he cites is to bring peace and closure to that rough time in history (the same rhetoric that Ford used to pardon Nixon with). Had others not already won on appeal (Poindexter), I would surmise that they too would have received Bush Sr. pardons.
However, it still leads open the issue of what is the morally correct thing to do when a corrupt administration actually gets caught. At what point is the threat of a pardon looming overhead override the need to punish the corrupt? I surmise the idea that a pardon was likely is what led to the amnesty grant by Congress to Ollie North in exchange for the testimony. If he's going to "get away with it" anyways, why not at least figure out what the hell "it" was in the first place, right?
Just one of those things. The Pardon has its legitimate uses, but it can also be abused as part of the overall cover-up operations of a corrupt administration. Who decides (besides pundits today and historians tomorrow) which is which?
It shows, by mentioning the case where a sizeable donation came about from the wife of someone who received a last-minute pardon from Clinton, that its one of those "soft-money" cases where favors can be bought by a standing President.
To my mind, I'm concerned about the use of the Presidential pardon, particularly in the case where the illegal activity was happening "for the good of the nation" and/or "under orders of the President". The example that comes to mind is Weinberger's pardon by Bush Sr., for the illegal activities of Iran-Contra under Reagan.
Bush doesn't deny the guilt, which I suppose is a good thing. In fact, the main reason he cites is to bring peace and closure to that rough time in history (the same rhetoric that Ford used to pardon Nixon with). Had others not already won on appeal (Poindexter), I would surmise that they too would have received Bush Sr. pardons.
However, it still leads open the issue of what is the morally correct thing to do when a corrupt administration actually gets caught. At what point is the threat of a pardon looming overhead override the need to punish the corrupt? I surmise the idea that a pardon was likely is what led to the amnesty grant by Congress to Ollie North in exchange for the testimony. If he's going to "get away with it" anyways, why not at least figure out what the hell "it" was in the first place, right?
Just one of those things. The Pardon has its legitimate uses, but it can also be abused as part of the overall cover-up operations of a corrupt administration. Who decides (besides pundits today and historians tomorrow) which is which?
