via https://ift.tt/3lcuKwa
America Needs to Prosecute Its Presidents
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/29/america-prosecute-presidents-pardon-trump-nixon/:
chamerionwrites
https://chamerionwrites.tumblr.com/post/634258945186398208/america-needs-to-prosecute-its-presidents
:
The American political system has no tradition of official disgrace or damnatio
memoriae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae. All presidents
are honored, even those who were awful or, in the case of President John
Tyler, disloyal. Tyler, the tenth president, not only ran a disastrous
administration but ended
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/john-tyler-traitor-well-yes-actually-/2013/02/24/a387eece-7d29-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html
his public life as a congressman in a brief-lived treasonous slave power.
And yet even Tyler receives official remembrances, including a
presidential dollar
coin
https://www.usmint.gov/coins/coin-medal-programs/presidential-dollar-coin/john-tyler
featuring his image.
That coin illustrates the natural arc of American political culture:
institutional ignoring of the misdeeds of the powerful in the name of
“healing.” Yet this norm does not heal; it harms. It makes a mockery of
Americans’ belief that they have a government of laws, not of men, if those
laws do not apply to the men who enforce the laws. It constitutes a denial
of justice and an amnesty granted only to the powerful. Left unchallenged,
this norm will protect Trump from the reckoning that the country needs.
Consider how the system dealt with Nixon.
Time has so effaced the details of Nixon’s malfeasance that he has regained
a patina of statesmanship. Thus, Richard Haass, president of the Council on
Foreign Relations, could recently tweet
https://twitter.com/RichardHaass/status/1308928396752293888?s=20 a
favorable comparison between Nixon and Trump, arguing that that “Nixon, for
all his flaws, was a conservative who abided by norms.”
Haass’s viral tweet reflects an irony that, in death, Nixon has finally
been accepted by the sort of institution whose rejections kindled
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BORMIRG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
in him a lifelong resentment of the Eastern Establishment he tried to join.
In doing so, it reflects a general amnesia about why Watergate was so bad
that illustrates how far elite culture will go to forgive the crimes of the
powerful.
The signature moment of Watergate is the June 17, 1972, break-in
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/watergate/watergate-break,
when a team of burglars were caught in the Democratic National Committee
headquarters. Reporting and investigations soon uncovered ties to the White
House. But that was just the tip of a very dirty iceberg. Subsequent
prosecutorial and congressional investigations broke apart not just the
Nixon administration’s frantic, illegal cover-up of its ties to the
burglary but uncovered an entire panoply of what Attorney General John
Mitchell called
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/13/archives/white-house-horrors.html the
“White House horrors.”
These included use and the attempted
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/intelligence/2020-06-25/spying-americans-new-release-infamous-huston-plan
use of government agencies like the IRS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/johnnie-walters-irs-commissioner-under-president-richard-m-nixon-dies-at-94/2014/06/26/e6ae4906-fd3d-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html
to go after the president’s political enemies. The administration sought to
persecute its enemies, leading to abuses like an attempt to steal the files
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/daniel-ellsberg-nixon-white-house-wanted-shut-me-assault-n774376
of dissident Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. The president directed
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/22/us/tapes-show-nixon-ordering-theft-of-files.html
his aides to retrieve classified papers from the Brookings Institution by
any means necessary, including stealing them or firebombing the think tank.
Even the Watergate break-in turned out to be the second one—the first
https://www.history.com/topics/watergate-scandal-timeline-nixon, on May
28, 1972, had been undetected.
And Nixon was not above using his position to enrich himself. He used
government agencies to improve his private residences. And he evaded taxes,
including by improperly claiming deductions
https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/45978/MA26_1_2.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
related to his gift of his vice-presidential papers to the government. Far
from abiding by norms, he broke them with abandon…
Ford’s pardoning of Nixon was unpopular at the time, with 53 percent of
https://news.gallup.com/vault/218198/gallup-vault-pardon-took-decade-forgive.aspx
Americans rejecting it. It has since become conventional wisdom among
America’s institutional elite that Ford’s act was merciful and correct. In
2001, a panel of eminences
https://www.jfklibrary.org/about-us/news-and-press/press-releases/president-gerald-ford-and-civil-rights-leader-john-lewis-named-recipients-of-2001-profile-in-courage
recruited by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation honored Ford’s pardon
of Nixon by giving him its Profiles in Courage Award.
At the awards dinner, Senator Ted Kennedy praised
https://www.jfklibrary.org/events-and-awards/profile-in-courage-award/award-recipients/president-gerald-ford-2001
the wisdom of Ford’s decision. “I was one of those who spoke out against
his action then,” Kennedy said. “But time has a way of clarifying past
events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and
dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of
healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us…”
The healing myth has become part of a bipartisan catechism even though its
central premise—that the pardon healed the country—is unsupportable. In the
long run, as Holtzman said, “the Nixon pardon has had terrible
ramifications.” It set the stage for later pardons related to executive
self-interest, including George H.W. Bush’s pardons of many figures
involved in the Iran-Contra scandal.
If U.S. political culture can congratulate itself for rehabilitating Nixon,
then the temptations for a Biden administration to do the same for Trump
will be powerful. Doing so will let the administration move on to other
priorities, sensible centrists will argue. And the next election is only
two years away—do you really want to have Trump still in the news by then?
Advocates of a pardon or other forms of clemency will point to other
factors as well. They will argue that, in a polarized country, the specter
of politicized prosecutions will raise the possibility that vengeful
Republicans will retaliate later. And indeed, it would be disastrous for
democracy were each administration to misuse prosecution against its
political enemies.
Yet given what we already know about the president’s finances and conduct
in office, an investigation of the Trump administration is unlikely to be
politicized in any meaningful sense. It is only a refusal to prosecute
that could be politicized, in the sense of being guided by political
calculation rather than a commitment to the rule of law. (That would apply
doubly to the idea that a pardon could help ease Trump out of the White
House without strife.)
More sophisticated observers might caution that even potentially
justifiable prosecutions could have deleterious effects on U.S. politics
and the country’s standing in the world. The prosecutions of Brazil’s most
recent presidents—Lula, Dilma, and Michel Temer—did much to clear the way
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/brazil-lula-carwash-corruption-temer-due-process-dilma/552056/
for the election of the country’s disastrous current president, Jair
Bolsonaro. Similar concerns have been raised about other prosecutions
elsewhere, like Ecuador’s conviction
https://www.france24.com/en/20200408-ecuador-s-former-president-rafael-correa-found-guilty-of-corruption
of former president Rafael Correa, which barred him from a return to
politics.
But it’s strange to argue that democracy depends on not prosecuting those
who commit crimes. In France, even a prime minister caught misusing public
funds may now go to jail https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53217298
rather than retire to a villa. And although some have criticized
https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/asia/south-koreas-troubling-history-of-jailing-ex-presidents/
South Korea for prosecuting its ex-presidents (over half of whom are now in
prison), measures like the Varieties of Democracy index show that
Seoul’s record
on liberal democracy https://www.v-dem.net/en/analysis/CountryGraph/ is
stronger than that of the United States.
It should not be surprising that democracy and prosecutions of former
officials can go together. That is, after all, the entire point of the rule
of law. Holding officials to account forms a critical part of strengthening
democratic institutions. And the ballot box is only one way to do that.
That is why Biden must not waver. If a former president has never been
prosecuted in American history, that’s because the last time the country
had a chance to do so it was denied that opportunity. Far from being bad
for democracy, a sober, lengthy, and deliberative investigation would be
good for establishing a record of the rot in the Trump administration. And
it would be a major boost for liberal democracy and anti-corruption efforts
by demonstrating that in mature democracies, officials face consequences.
Having a president who committed crimes is not unprecedented in American
history. What would be unprecedented would be to end this long national
nightmare by letting them face the same justice that any other American
should.