Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter thinks trying to impeach Clinton again would be a good idea.

February 12, 2001 7:13 AM

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter thinks trying to impeach Clinton again would be a good idea. Did Clinton finally cross the line with his last-minue pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, or are Republicans just bitter about eight years of Clinton presidency?
posted by mrbula (49 comments total)

i'd prefer they get to work on, oh, solving the nation's problems or something. focusing on clinton, especially now that he's gone, is a waste of everyone's time & money.
posted by palegirl at 7:41 AM on February 12, 2001

retarded. The guy isn't even in office any longer. I say they need to give it a rest and move on with their own damn lives.
posted by howa2396 at 7:41 AM on February 12, 2001

Does this mean they will go back and impeach Ford for pardoning Nixon too? Of course not. It seems, to me anyway, that the Republican Party knows what a thin line they walk and hope to discredit the entire Democratic party by slapping down its most recent leader, even if he is no longer in the lead chair. Now is the time for our "leaders" to do a little soul searching and to get the country's priorities in order before we start falling again.
posted by Princess Buttercup at 7:49 AM on February 12, 2001

Did Clinton finally cross the line with his last-minue pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, or are Republicans just bitter about eight years of Clinton presidency?

Both. I think we've all been kinda avoiding this subject here at MeFi. I, for one, have been more than a little embarrassed about the whole thing--there's not a lot Clinton could say in his defense.

What I find amazing is that Bush is still declaring himself Mr. Bipartisan, while the rest of his party is conducting business as usual. Pretty ballsy, after Florida. I'm a lover, not a fighter, but this is the kind of shit makes it hard to control oneself.
posted by jpoulos at 7:49 AM on February 12, 2001

Specter takes the phrase "sore winner" to new heights. To paraphrase the counter-demonstrators at the inaugural:

You won. Get over it.

posted by idiolect at 7:50 AM on February 12, 2001

I encourage everyone to write or email Mr. Specter and your members of Congress to make sure that they will not waste our tax money on this useless issue.
posted by timothompson at 7:52 AM on February 12, 2001

There was a commentator who once made the analogy that watching Bill Clinton and the Republicans fight was like watching an old Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote cartoon.

Wile E. pins the Roadrunner at the corner edge of some cliff, and then starts to jackhammer around the bird to send it plummeting to its death. But what happens is, the entire cliffside falls, taking Wile E. with it, leaving the Roadrunner inexplicably standing there in mid-air, going "Meep Meep", and zooming off to the next encounter.

The only thing all this impeachment talk does the Republicans is allows Clinton to stay in the public-eye and to better do his new job as chief Democratic fundraiser.
posted by bgluckman at 7:58 AM on February 12, 2001

Spector is hardly in good with the Repub leadership. He's a loose cannon and everyone's known that since the Clarence Thomas hearings.

That aside, the whole Marc Rich thing stinks. Stinks. And no matter who else did whatever whenever with regard to pardons, that doesn't cover up the stench. 75-80% of Americans who've been polled think so. The prosecutors on the case (who were completely left out of the loop on the pardon) who know all of the nitty-gritty details think so. The media thinks so. So why not look into it, figure out if it is as dirty as it is seems (highly likely) and then find the loophole to undo it. There's always some loophole, after all, and if there were ever a case where that should be exploited, this is it.
posted by Dreama at 8:14 AM on February 12, 2001

What Clinton did was no worse than the abuses Congress participates in on a daily basis (pork, perks, etc.). Watch the NBC evening news and you get a daily dose of "the fleecing of America."
posted by fleener at 8:19 AM on February 12, 2001

fleener, the difference here is that issuing pardons is not a day-to-day activity. it's a pretty serious responsibility that Clinton, apparently, abused.

having said that, dreama (my favorite disgruntled conservative), i don't think it should be undone. Just as with the impeachment, it sets a pretty horrible precedent, which undermines the office. no matter what you think of clinton, we can't let it undermine the presidency.
posted by jpoulos at 8:34 AM on February 12, 2001

Can anyone provide a link where we can read the actual law regarding presidential pardons? I was under the impression that this ability was part of the balance of powers between the executive and judiciary branches and that there should be no loophole.
posted by donkeymon at 8:35 AM on February 12, 2001

I guess my question would then be "Why in the world would he(Specter) even bother to research the "possibility" of another impeachment"?
posted by Princess Buttercup at 8:54 AM on February 12, 2001

Unfortunately, this isn't a partisan issue. The pardon of Marc Rich was, to say the least, highly questionable; anyone who looks seriously at it can see that. I think the hearings are justified.

Marc Rich helped transfer North Korean missiles to Iran and brokered oil deals with the apartheid regime of South Africa. He's also one of the biggest tax cheats in US history.

The White House counsels opposed the pardon. The NSA, CIA, and Justice Department would have opposed it if they had known about it. Former Clinton secretary of labor Robert Reich said it looked like "a political payoff."

The Rich pardon may damage Clinton more in the long term than the Lewinsky scandal did, because it is so obviously a pay-for-play situation.
posted by tranquileye at 8:56 AM on February 12, 2001

It should also be noted that the first US Attorney to handle the Rich case (and be haunted by it for 17 years) was none other than the first opponent to Hillary's NY senate bid, Rudolph Guiliani. Quid pro quo and a chance at a hearty screw you -- who could resist?

And jpoulos, thanks, I've always wanted to be somebody's favourite disgruntled conservative.
posted by Dreama at 9:00 AM on February 12, 2001

The transcript isn't 100% clear, but hints that Specter was merely researching what Congress could do, period. And that it was a counsel to President Ford that blurted out the impeachment concept to Specter. (That counsel almost certainly researched the idea of post-term impeachment in 1974-75.)
posted by aaron at 9:02 AM on February 12, 2001

donkeymon: You're right. That law is the United States Constitution. Article II, Section 2 states in part, "The President shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

This interesting comparison of the pardon power in the US and Russia concludes that "[c]hecks on presidential pardon power in the United States are weak and pose no serious threat to its use or scope. This weakness is a function of constitutional design and the separation of powers it creates."

For persepctive, remember that Bush I pardoned Caspar Weinberger two weeks before the Iran-Contra conspirator's trial which would have focused on evidence that implicated Bush in the cover-up.

Of course, he was a lame duck at the time, and this quote from then President-elect Clinton is pretty ironic now: "I am concerned by any action that sends a signal that if you work for the Government, you're beyond the law, or that not telling the truth to Congress under oath is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body under oath."
posted by nicwolff at 9:15 AM on February 12, 2001

Apparently there's another side to this story. John Dean (remember him) brings up some other issues.

Among other things, Clinton was petitioned by both the current Israeli Prime Minister, Barak, and former PM Perez on behalf of Rich.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:19 AM on February 12, 2001

All those Israeli politicians wrote letters on Rich's behalf because Rich has given tons of money to pro-Israeli causes.
posted by aaron at 9:23 AM on February 12, 2001

Actually, it's very much a partisan issue tranquileye. In fact, it's a personal issue, as many in the GOP despise Clinton personally much more than they do your average Democrat. If you can't "undo" the pardon--which I'm certain you can't--what good would it possibly do the nation to impeach a former president? Regardless of how inappropriate, even sleazy, the pardon was, Clinton was perfectly within his rights (and within the law) to do so. To chase after him now would be motivated entirely by personal spite, and the desire to diminish his political fund-raising credibility. It has nothing to do with jurisprudence.
posted by jpoulos at 9:27 AM on February 12, 2001

Re-impeaching Clinton, if it led to his conviction, would strip him of his pension and all other retirement benefits, like his big free office and his secret service protection. Given his relative youth, an actuary might value that package at $20 million. Moreover, even without a conviction, it would cut into his directorship and speaking fees as well as his fundraising prowess, as other posters have mentioned.

The Rich affair is already having an effect: his first big speaking fee (for Morgan Stanley) was heavily attacked and MS's CEO has already said it was a mistake, and is desperately trying to keep from losing brokerage clients because of it.
posted by MattD at 9:37 AM on February 12, 2001

Aaoron -- got to love simultaneous postings of the same exact thought ... great minds think alike :)

Anyway, a lot of Democrats are in on this because, IMO, they always regretted not being able to condemn Clinton fully for Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc., for "circle the wagons" political reasons. They are now released from their constraints, and, in any event, want to make Clintonian excesses appear personal to him, not endemic to the party.

Also, I think that they are just furious that in one fell swoop the Clintons made every Republican effort to win the election and put Bush in office appear not only reasonable, but perhaps even morally justified as a righteous crusade against corruption. The Rich pardon, more than anything else, made Bush's alleged illegitimacy as President a political dead letter ... and assured that Ashcroft would be confirmed, etc.


posted by MattD at 9:44 AM on February 12, 2001

A sitting President can pardon anyone he wants, for any reason or for no reason, and he does not have to justify himself to anyone. That's the way the system works. If Republicans want to crow about how "the system" worked in electing Dubya to the highest office in the nation, then they've got to respect "the system" when Clinton uses it too.

Doesn't mean I agree with the pardon in question; I think it stinks. But there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it, and trying to do something only wastes time and makes you look foolish.
posted by kindall at 9:44 AM on February 12, 2001

Even as one who loathes Dubya's politics, I can only imagine what MeFi would look like if this were Dubya's last act in office. The number of posts! The petitions! The calls to arms!

We'd all like to think that as, say, Republicans in 1974, we wouldn't defend Nixon. It's no better on the part of us lefties to say "ah, that's politics, look at Congress, mumble mumble."
posted by argybarg at 9:55 AM on February 12, 2001

Listen, I've been very clear that I think this was a pretty sleazy affair, but how does stripping Clinton of his pension benefit anyone. And don't even claim that $20 million (an extremely high estimate) over 40 years means a damn thing. As if Impeachment I and the Florida debacle haven't done enough to lower the world's opinion of us!

And the fact that many from both parties are denouncing the pardon doesn't mean that they're "in on this," as far as seeking some sort of bogus punishment.

Kindall is right: the system is the system. Over the last 5 to 7 years, the GOP have pulled off an a multi-million-dollar smear campaign, a near-treasonous impeachment and an illegitimate election in the name of "the system". Quit pushing your luck.
posted by jpoulos at 10:20 AM on February 12, 2001

I am confused (not unusual). Does the president have the right to pardon anyone? Ford did Nixon. If he has this right, then whether Rich was a good or bad guy is besides the point. The notion of a presidential pardon seems somewhat akin to kingship. Presidential pardons undermine the judicial branch of government. And the Supreme Court can do that without any help.
posted by Postroad at 10:28 AM on February 12, 2001

They don't "undermine" the judicial branch, Fred. They provide check & balances. It is a lot of power, but it's seldom used.
posted by jpoulos at 10:32 AM on February 12, 2001

It's over. Leave it to the historians.
posted by holgate at 10:44 AM on February 12, 2001

While were at it, here's some other wrongs we can right after the fact:
> Let's dig up Nixon and try him for something. If we can't get him for Watergate because of Ford's pardon, let's at least convict him of writing ponderous, self-serving nonfiction.
> Let's try the Bee Gees for our overuse of hairspray in the '70s. Thousands of boomers now have receding hairlines because of "Naturally Dry" overdosing during the bell-bottom days.
> Let's join in on those 40-acres and a mule lawsuits. I'm not even an African-American, but who wouldn't want a cute mule for a pet?
> Can we convict Brett Butler of not being funny?
> How about a lawsuit against Chipper Jones? My kids used to idolize him until he knocked up a Hooters girl. Now I idolize him.
posted by darren at 11:03 AM on February 12, 2001

Hey, Frank Chu will be happy...
posted by Hackworth at 11:19 AM on February 12, 2001

The best thing a Democrat can hope for is that the GOP makes a second attempt to impeach Clinton.
posted by Postroad at 11:32 AM on February 12, 2001

I wish my last name was "Specter." woo-ooo-ooooooo.... spooky.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:22 PM on February 12, 2001

The Republicans in Congress are playing bad cop to Bush's good cop. While Specter and Burton fill up the airwaves with lame "debates" on issues from the past, Bush plays it above the fray, concentrates on his hand-picked issue of the week, and generally looks presidential. What little airtime that Democrats get is spent saying "well, the pardon itself is indefensible..." instead of "we have a better tax plan that protects medicare and social security".

It's really quite a good game they're playing. I congratulate them on it.
posted by dhartung at 5:59 PM on February 12, 2001

So why not look into it, figure out if it is as dirty as it is seems (highly likely) and then find the loophole to undo it. There's always some loophole, after all, and if there were ever a case where that should be exploited, this is it.

The president's pardoning power is in the Constitution and offers no oversight for the other branches of government.

Personally, I don't think the Rich pardon is as egregious as Reagan striking a secret deal with Iran to hold onto American hostages until after the 1980 election. If we're going to line up ex-presidents for pointless impeachment, let's start with Bonzo.
posted by rcade at 7:08 PM on February 12, 2001

y'see, i heard jfk used to sleep around... what a message to send our children. i call for impeachment!
posted by pikachulolita at 7:25 PM on February 12, 2001

One of the leading critics of the U.S. government case against Marc Rich is Leonard Garment, counsel to the president under Richard Nixon.

"It was Garment, a Republican, who first attacked the government's case against Marc Rich. Garment turned to two eminent tax law professors, Martin Ginsburg (Georgetown) and Bernard Wolfman (Harvard), who concluded — contrary to the government's contention — that Rich's companies, in fact, owed no taxes. Martin Ginsburg would, in time, become the husband of an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and neither man has a reputation that can be bought.

"Anyone who knows Garment (I have for almost thirty years) knows that he, also, cannot be bought. Because Len has not had any connection with Rich for years, I called him to get his read on the pardon. While he had nothing to do with it, he makes a powerful case that Rich was the victim of overzealous prosecution, not to mention highly slanted and distorted media coverage."

Source: John Dean (yes, that John Dean) on FindLaw

posted by rcade at 7:57 PM on February 12, 2001

Actually, Specter says:
"I'm not suggesting that it should be done, but President Clinton technically could still be impeached." He added, "I don't think that trial would take too long."

Specter said Clinton "avoided a conviction on impeachment the last time around because he had not lost the confidence of the American people, and we didn't want to shake up the government, but he's not in office anymore."

In February 1999, the Senate voted to acquit Clinton, with Specter opposing his removal from office.

This stuff is out there for everyone to read, you probably should if you're going to post something on here. Unless you're trying to get a good response by posting false info.


posted by zerotype at 8:11 PM on February 12, 2001

i think the issue at hand for me, at least, is why even bring it up? so what we could impeach clinton? who cares, arlen? i read the article, and i'm not saying that there's a big call for impeachment. i'm just wondering why the hell it's even an issue that he could be impeached. as people here have shown, there have been far more immoral pardons. but not illegal. the president has the power to pardon whoever the hell he wants. it's his check and balance against the judicial branch.

besides which, it's a horrible idea to start a trend of questioning impeachment at the drop of a hat. clinton is the only president i've ever really been aware of, and i don't think it's fair that i'm growing up with the mindset that if you don't like a politician, you can try to impeach him using either dirt from his past or something that you just plain old don't like. this hadn't happened since johnson (or basically nixon), and now all of a sudden it's getting discussed every time the proverbial shit hits the fan. while recall is absolutely an essential part of our political system, it's not a toy to play around with.
posted by pikachulolita at 9:50 PM on February 12, 2001

But congress also has the right to investigate the matter and perhaps amend the pardoning process to, for example, require DOJ review, or something similar.

Congress can't amend the Constitution. It would take a constitutional amendment to restrict the president's pardoning power, and what are the odds of that happening when every sitting president is going to oppose the effort for obvious reasons?
posted by rcade at 7:43 AM on February 13, 2001

Nobody is questioning the constitutionality of the pardons themselves. The president's power to pardon is absolute, and he need give no explanations. The question is whether huge amounts of illegal money were funneled to Clinton in order to buy the pardon.
posted by aaron at 7:55 AM on February 13, 2001

The pardon is, and should be, absolute, but should be excused from political accountability.

Solution: subjecting the pardon power to a 90-day tolling period in which the President, or his successor, can revoke or reduce the scope of any pardon, commutation or reprieve, before it takes effect.

This means that Clinton would have had to pardon Rich no later than October 22 in order for his successor to have no right to revoke the pardon -- which of course, given the political consequences, would have meant that Rich never would have gotten the pardon.


posted by MattD at 9:53 AM on February 13, 2001

Matt, that's actually one of the most sensible things I've read on the issue thus far. Not a bad idea at all.

Plus, it would free up the last days of any corrupt administration so that they could forget about business and get to the good stuff like stealing furniture and yanking the phone cords out of the walls.
posted by Dreama at 10:40 AM on February 13, 2001

rcade:

I don't think that is the case. It is the congress that interprets the constitution and defines the specifics. For example, the constitution states many rights and prohibitions, such as the right to bear arms. But it's up to Congress and legislatures to interpret this. In some states, it means you can carry concealed weapons, and in some places (such as DC) you can't own a handgun--period.

So basically what I'm saying is that the president will always "have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." That does not mean that the Congress can't establish a formal process/procedure for this task, however. MattD has a possible alteration to the process that would likely pass judicial review with flying colors.

posted by Witold at 1:54 PM on February 13, 2001

Witold and Dreama, thanks for the props -- but I should note that this would certainly require a Constitutional amendment to take effect; the Article III grant of power cannot be restrained by legislation (legislation attempting it certainly would not pass judicial review).

This, however, is exactly the sort of Constitutional amendment which can have legs and may have an actual shot at adoption (by a 2/3rds vote of each house of Congress) and ratification (by a majority of each house of the legislature in 3/4ths of the states).
posted by MattD at 2:52 PM on February 13, 2001

It is the congress that interprets the constitution and defines the specifics.

Congress has no power to interpret the Constitution. That rests with the judicial branch of government.
posted by rcade at 9:28 AM on February 14, 2001

This, however, is exactly the sort of Constitutional amendment which can have legs and may have an actual shot at adoption (by a 2/3rds vote of each house of Congress) and ratification (by a majority of each house of the legislature in 3/4ths of the states).

Every sitting president is going to oppose that amendment effort, for obvious reasons. Bush spoke out in favor of the president's pardoning power immediately.
posted by rcade at 9:29 AM on February 14, 2001

Good thing the President has no role in the amendment process, then.
posted by kindall at 5:28 PM on February 14, 2001