Sequels are rarely as successful as the originals, although apparently Washington doesn't think so. Last week, Republican members of Congress suggested they could impeach Former President Clinton again, this time for the pardoning of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) said the latest Clinton scandal (who ever thought we would be saying that again) could be reason enough to remove him from the symbolic office of "Ex-President."
Just hours before leaving the White House, former President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, a business man indicted in 1983 for tax evasion, and accused of running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis. The pardon was unusual because Clinton ignored some of the Justice Department channels usually used in determining pardons and Mr. Rich's wife has given over $1 million to Democratic candidates (including Hillary Clinton) as well as over $400,000 to Clinton's library fund. The controversial circumstances surrounding the pardon give Clinton's critics one last opportunity to investigate him.
Marc Rich is not a wonderful human being, and certainly wasn't the best choice for a pardon, as Clinton himself admits. But short of a constitutional amendment, nothing will change the fact that Section 2, Article II grants the President absolute authority in granting pardons. Nonetheless, members of Congress like Rep. Dan Burton R-Ind. see this as another example of Clinton doing favors for campaign donors. (Note: bribery, unlike adultery, is considered a high crime.) They want to persuade Rich's wife to testify that the pardon was a quid pro quo. Yet ironically, some of the Members of Congress accusing Clinton of corruption are the same people that say there is nothing objectionable in their own acceptance of huge contributions in exchange for agreeing to lobbyists' legislative demands. They won't investigate their own nefarious relationships, but are happy to waste taxpayers' time and money for one last chance to "get" Clinton.
Luckily for the American taxpayers' wallets (the last impeachment debacle cost us over $40 million), the White House's current occupant isn't nearly as hot and bothered at the prospect of a second impeachment trial. One reason President George W. Bush wants to "move on" is because having Clinton stay in the limelight for another six to nine months will be lethal to his retroactive tax cut, not to mention his various other legislative priorities. Bush may also remember the last time an outgoing president made some questionable pardons.
On Christmas Eve 1992, less than a month before leaving office, President George H. W. Bush pardoned six of the people who were involved in the Iran-Contra fiasco of the Reagan presidency. Iran-Contra involved a complicated deal in which the U.S. sold weapons (including missiles) to Iran to use in the war against Iraq, in exchange for Iran agreeing to release U.S. hostages in Lebanon. Some of the funds from the weapons sales were then diverted to Nicaragua to help the Contras fight against the country's left-leaning Sandinista government.
George H. W. Bush's pardons may have simply been favors to old friends. Or, as some have speculated, the pardons may have been given in order to protect higher-ranking members of the Reagan administration, including Bush himself. Regardless of his motivations, Bush was never investigated for his actions. Ironically, President-elect Clinton's response at the time was that he was concerned, "by any action which sends a signal that, if you work for the government, you're above the law."
Other past Presidents have be known to give pardons of a somewhat dubious nature (as Clinton himself noted in his self-defense op-ed piece, published in last Sunday's New York Times). Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa in 1971, and received the Teamsters' endorsements the year after. Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, made the most infamous pardon in American history when he pardoned Nixon for crimes related to Watergate. In general, modern-day Presidents have given fewer pardons then their predecessors. Although the only true way to measure the use (or misuse) of the pardon power is in terms of pardons per year of a Presidency. Carter leads the last four Presidents with 141 pardons per year. Clinton pardoned approximately 56 per year, Reagan pardoned 51 per year and Bush (Sr.) pardoned 19 per year. By comparison, Truman pardoned approximately 400 people per year of his presidency, and Herbert Hoover pardoned nearly 350 per year.
Already, some Republicans in Congress have begun chastising their own colleagues for their over-eagerness with regard to second impeachment. Maybe they're right to worry. The impeachment investigation in 1998 won the House Democrats 5 additional seats during the midterm elections. If the Democrats gained 5 seats in 2002, they would control the House by a one-vote majority.
If Congressional Republicans continue to pursue this inquiry, it will mark a rather violent death for the new cooperation that George W. Bush is so fond of. In addition, we must seriously question the Republicans' priorities when these events come at a time when they control the Congress and the Presidency. That level of power is what conservatives have been dreaming about for decades, but instead of enacting a conservative agenda, they are simply mounting another investigation of Bill Clinton. Are they really concerned with the influence of money in politics, or are they merely concerned with satisfying their obsession over Clinton? The American people elected a government to legislate, not to litigate; let's move on.
