| Donald Trump is at it again, using his constitutional power of the pardon lawlessly as a way to reward, as the New York Times put it, "a who's who of white-collar criminals from politics, sports and business who were convicted on charges involving fraud, corruption and lies." For a president who sometimes wants to be treated as if he opposes corruption, it was yet another sad case of excusing or even embracing it. Once upon a time — for all recent presidents up through Barack Obama — pardons were carefully screened by professionals, and presidents would avoid any hint of partisanship or self-dealing. Now, in the deprofessionalized Trump administration, crooks send their representatives to Fox News to get the president's attention. I argued the case for the lawlessness of Trump's approach to pardons long ago. Yes, an action can be both constitutionally authorized and also lawless. I will add a couple of points. A lot of analysts on Tuesday committed the #cleverfallacy — assuming that Trump's actions had some sort of complex rationale to them. While it's always possible, the best explanation for Trump's actions is his lack of impulse control. He wants what he wants, and he treats the presidency as something he won that allows him to do stuff he wants. Pardons are great for that, because they're the closest thing to an absolute power the president has. The other point? Trump's decision to commute the sentence of former Democratic governor of Illinois Rod R. Blagojevich produced immediate criticism from Republican members of the House from that state. Politico's Jake Sherman was not alone in sneering at such reports: "But if you're Trump, you know that Rs are going to fall in line behind you either way. So why not just do what you want?" But the problem here isn't Republicans falling in line. In fact, it's a pretty big deal for five Republicans to put out a statement criticizing a same-party president. And yes, it comes on top of Republican senators pushing against the president over war powers, and against his pick for the federal reserve. And after Republicans in both chambers of Congress having no interest at all in defending his budget proposal, which is (as usual) dead on arrival. And after his own attorney general rebuked him publicly and then was reported to be considering a resignation. No, the problem here is one of many in the media setting a ridiculous bar for what counts as Republican dissent against Trump — so that unless congressional Republicans are willing to remove him from office or leave the party over his behavior, we're told that their pushback just doesn't count. It is true, of course, that in many cases Republican criticism has been muted, or in other cases sharp criticism isn't matched by votes. But same-party dissent is unusual, and it usually counts as news. To dismiss such things because they won't push Trump out of office or because they seem insufficient giving the provocation is to give Trump a huge advantage over other politicians who are subject to endless rounds of "party in disarray" stories any time they receive same-party criticism. 1. Julia Azari argues for preference voting to supplement traditional presidential primaries. 2. Amy S. Patterson at the Monkey Cage on the coronavirus in Africa. 3. Dan Drezner on Michael Bloomberg's campaign and its effect on the information environment. (Disclaimer: Michael Bloomberg is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. He is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.) 4. Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Laura Bronner on public opinion and impeachment. 5. Nate Silver takes a careful look at the chances of Bernie Sanders winning the nomination. 6. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Andrew Gabor on school vouchers. | 
Social media giant Facebook has made a move into dedicated video, pitting it against YouTube and TV networks. Users will soon se...
Post a Comment