|Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback||
N. Y. plans to heal skyline
Stocks rise on Case departure
Lieberman's presidential announcement today
New arrests may be linked to UK ricin scare
Jordan says farewell for the third time
Shaq could miss playoff game for child's birth
Ex-USOC official says athletes bent drug rules
(FINDLAW) -- Has anyone paused to think about the implications of investigating a former president? Hauling aides before Congress for a political show is one thing, but hauling them before a grand jury is another story.
It strikes me that we are witnessing the creation of a very dangerous precedent. Not only do we seek to destroy presidents while they are in office, but we do so after they leave office as well.
The time will come -- if it has not already -- that only a fool or idiot will seek the highest office in the land.
If the facts reported in the newspapers and revealed in the congressional hearings are accurate, many officeholders may be in trouble if Clinton's activity is found illegal.
The distinction between illegal bribery and legal campaign contribution, as some would have it, is as fine as the hair on a frog's back.
Accordingly, there are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 100 members of the U.S. Senate whose conduct, where campaign contributions are concerned, is probably legally indistinguishable from that of Clinton when he was president
No restraint in New York
Notwithstanding President Bush's disposition to move on and leave the Clinton administration's issues behind, his U.S. attorney in Manhattan, New York, has convened a grand jury to investigate the pardons of Marc Rich and others.
According to press reports, some 30 of the pardons granted by Clinton during his term in office related to cases arising in the Southern District of New York. Obviously these prosecutors are not big on mercy, and they are angry. This investigation looks like pure revenge.
As Attorney General John Ashcroft and President Bush have apparently already discovered, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York often proceeds as if it were not part of the Department of Justice, marching to its own drummer.
For this reason, the investigation of Clinton may well be proceeding without the blessing of Washington. I certainly hope that is the case.
Perhaps the new attorney general has not yet figured out how to deal with these independent-minded prosecutors who would probably like to do to Clinton exactly what they did to Marc Rich: Run him out of the country.
It appears that the New York prosecutors could care less about the impact their investigation may have on presidential pardon power, or about the precedent they are establishing. Indeed, they probably would be delighted if their investigation serves as a warning to all future presidents: Do not pardon anyone involved in Southern District cases.
The only potential upside of the investigation is that if there was, in fact, no quid pro quo for the pardons, it may clear Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton.
The Southern District is staffed by some of the best and brightest federal prosecutors. They can be counted on to do a thorough and vigorous investigation, which will either find evidence of wrongdoing or exonerate the Clintons.
Whether exoneration or blame results, however, the Southern District is setting a terrible precedent by criminally investigating a former president for the exercise of his presidential power -- as soon as he walks out of the Oval Office.
The mere fact of this investigation will forever change the presidency. Now every president knows that any prosecutor anywhere in the country could come after him (or her) after leaving office, if that prosecutor does not like a pardon that has been granted.
It is a small step from investigating a pardon grant to investigating other presidential actions. Apparently there is no concern, caution or restraint about investigating a former president, because we have become so accustomed to criminal investigations of presidents.
(Though the public does not always remember this, not only Nixon and Clinton but also Reagan, Bush and even Carter were all investigated).
Benefit of our doubt
There was a time, during my lifetime, when most everyone gave a president the benefit of the doubt.
When as an undergraduate I started studying the presidency, I had the opportunity to attend an Eisenhower press conference in the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House (now the Eisenhower Building). A few years later, as a law student, I attended a Kennedy press conference at the State Department.
I remember mingling with the reporters and being struck by the respect they had for these presidents and for the institution of the presidency.
While every bit as tough and cynical as today's reporters, if not more so, journalists once thought that when a president was being less than candid it was because he believed it was best for the good of the nation -- not because of ulterior motives.
When Eisenhower told baldfaced lies about American intelligence gathering activities, he was given the benefit of the doubt. So too with Kennedy when he bungled the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
Even during the early years of the Johnson Administration, the press largely accepted the president's explanations of troop buildup in Vietnam and never questioned phony White House-sponsored actions, such as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, designed to justify a war that could not be justified.
Since Vietnam and Watergate
It was, of course, the protracted war in Vietnam, and then Watergate, that changed first the news media -- which rightly believed they had been lied to -- and then the public.
Every president since Richard Nixon has been perceived as guilty as charged, no matter what the charge may be. This changed attitude has been politically exploited not merely to defeat presidential opponents, but also to destroy them -- by encouraging, if not demanding, partisan criminal investigations whenever possible.
First, there was President Ford. There was not a newsman in Washington, including the president's own press secretary (who resigned), who believed Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for other than some nefarious reason.
Ford was tarred and feathered and accused of lying when he explained his actions to Congress. Democrats called for a criminal investigation. He lost his re-election bid because he pardoned Nixon.
Yet time has shown it was the right decision, and there is not a scintilla of evidence there was a deal, illicit or otherwise, that motivated the pardon.
Then there was Jimmy Carter, a man only a sick cynic would disagree has shown himself to be among the most honest, honorable men to ever serve as our chief executive.
Yet as president, Carter fought Republican accusations that led to scandal after scandal and investigation after investigation: Lancegate (alleged misdeeds by Budget Director Burt Lance), Pillgate (the claim that a White House doctor was passing out Quaaludes), Billygate (the search for alleged ties between the president and his brother's association with the Libyan government) -- among others.
Again, it was assumed that all this smoke meant fire: The president must be guilty of something.
The Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies were similarly racked with scandals and criminal investigations of varying sizes and shapes -- the most spectacular being Iran-Contra, which ended only when the senior Bush pardoned all remaining targets of the inquiry, thereby closing the investigation.
It has long been a foregone conclusion for many that Bush must have pardoned his secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger, who was about to go on trial, to protect himself from criminal liability. But there is no hard evidence to support this conclusion. Again, the president is presumed guilty.
No one needs to be reminded of the past eight years during which President Clinton was continuously investigated for wrongdoing and accused of everything from murder and rape to drug running. Again, it is simply assumed by many that he is guilty as charged.
Because no president enjoys a presumption of innocence, the public tolerates (and the news media encourages) this unfortunate pattern of destructive political behavior in which opponents demand criminal investigations rather than simply criticize or debate or comment on a president's actions.
The court of public opinion repeatedly has given way to more formal forums. How long will it take for a Democrat to demand an criminal inquiry of the new administration? It is only a matter of time, and no one will be surprised when it happens.
What is overlooked is the dire impact of these criminal investigations on the presidency as an institution. They are seriously weakening it. Similarly ignored is the devastating human impact on both presidents and those who serve them.
Talk with anyone from former presidents to the secretaries in the Correspondence Unit, and they will tell you how debilitating these investigations are for everybody within the White House.
We treat our presidents now like vicious criminals, not public servants. We ignore the reality that the politics of personal destruction hurt everyone, breeding cynicism and distrust among all Americans while destroying the institution of the presidency.
When is enough, enough?
Most federal crimes are governed by a three to five-year statute of limitations. Thus, Jimmy Carter's Justice Department could have launched a criminal investigation of former president Jerry Ford, alleging that he obstructed justice by issuing a pardon to Nixon.
Similarly, Bill Clinton's Justice Department could have criminally investigated whether George H.W. Bush obstructed justice in granting a pardon to Caspar Weinberger.
These investigations did not happen, and rightly so. Nor should an investigation of former President Clinton for his official acts -- including pardons -- take place.
The federal criminal code is so broad that it would not have been very difficult for any president (or U.S. attorney's office) to find a reason to launch a criminal investigation of the president's predecessor.
In the past this was considered out of bounds. But given the precedent being set by the Southern District of New York now, that is no longer the case.
We have made another big leap without looking. Once the first investigation occurs, it is not difficult to start another. Soon they may be commonplace.
Today, it is former president Bill Clinton. In four or eight years, will it be another former president -- George W. Bush?
Clearly, we have found another way to inflict damage upon those who hold the highest office in the land.
The expanding criminalization of presidential politics is foolish, shortsighted, and ultimately hurtful to everyone.
Is not it time for more constructive, rather than destructive, politics? When is enough, enough?
|Back to the top||
© 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.|
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.