My understanding is that there was a criminal investigation of Clinton's Marc Rich pardon that concluded without finding any evidence of criminality. I'm not raising this as a defense of his making that pardon, but rather, to point out that a President selling pardons is and has long been considered a serious crime. The Clinton precedent is a clear illustration. Saying "hey, some book alleges Clinton got paid for a pardon, therefore it's common practice" sounds nice, but ignores the fact that suspicion around Clinton's Marc Rich pardon triggered an extensive criminal investigation that concluded he did not, in fact, get paid for it.
> My understanding is that there was a criminal investigation of Clinton's Marc Rich pardon that concluded without finding any evidence of criminality.
I don't know anything about the investigation, but no finding does not mean no criminality. Ignoring all the politics involved, there are plenty of more mundane examples. Someone attacks you. You call the police. It's your word against theirs and so the investigation is closed because they cannot show that a crime was committed, but you know it was.
The wiki article cited on HW suggests that bribes may have been constructed as either loans (that were not repaid) or as payment to Hugh Rodham for "representing their cases". Neither is criminal, but it's a simple and classic way of taking a bride and turning it legal by putting another sticker on it. Example:
---
Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his 1983 mail fraud and perjury convictions.[19] In 1998 he was under federal investigation for money laundering and tax evasion charges.[20] Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public.[21][22] Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.[23]
If you're going to make the claim that payment for pardons (as opposed to lobbying) is common and accepted, you should back it up with facts. The actual facts in this case indicate that it wasn't common or accepted (as indicated by the fact that a major investigation was triggered and carried out), and in fact there's no evidence that it occurred in this case. You're now withdrawing to "well, we can't prove that criminal behavior didn't happen". That's true; we also can't prove that the Clintons aren't aliens. It doesn't make your claims any less unsupported.
ETA: The relevance to today is that the same standards will likely apply to any pardons made by Trump this morning. If people paid other parties to lobby for a Trump pardon then it may not be illegal (as much as it's terrible policy.) If direct payments to Trump or his businesses were made then it could be criminal behavior. There's also precedent for appointing a special prosecutor to investigate it.
"The brisk market for pardons reflects the access peddling that has defined Mr. Trump’s presidency as well as his unorthodox approach to exercising unchecked presidential clemency powers. Pardons and commutations are intended to show mercy to deserving recipients, but Mr. Trump has used many of them to reward personal or political allies."
Person gives person B money.
Person B gives person A a pardon.
We can say that A paid for access, made a voluntary contribution, lightened their walled, lent out money that didn't have to be repaid, etc. In practice, these are just ways of phrasing "bribe" differently.
That's not what the NYT is reporting, the NYT is reporting that Person A gives person B money, person B provides access for Person A to talk to Person C about giving Person A a pardon.
The pardoner, Person C, does not get any money. That is an important distinction.
I'm not saying Trump isn't accepting payments for pardons, I'm saying the NYT article linked above isn't reporting that. They're reporting on lobbying efforts, which don't appear to be illegal.
People pay for the President's time quite frequently. What's interesting about this story is that the folks with access are trying directly to solicit from convicts. I think that's fairly new or at least newsworthy.
My example is purposely simplified. It's only intended to illustrate how the same situation can be described in different ways. In reality, it makes a lot of sense to add all sorts of layers.
A gives B money, C offers A a parson, B does C a favor.
Etc etc etc.
This construction may obscure what's happening and may even make conviction impossible, which we may take to mean that it's no longer illegal. But legal or illegal, it is effectively paying for freedom.
---
This has nothing to do with lobbying. Freedom is what people pay for.
If B does C a favor, then it's lobbying. The lobbying laws are there precisely to regulate this kind of thing. You can't completely isolate lawmakers, and wouldn't want to. But you do want to know who they're talking to, and how much they're being paid to. That's why they have to register as lobbyists, and be audited for that. They're not allowed to funnel money or favors, and the FEC is watching.
It's far from perfect, but it's not as nefarious as it sounds. It's a compromise.
Ah, so this is a, "I don't like lobbying" complaint?
Fair enough, lobbying has gotten weird and pay-to-play, though if you don't like what's happening here, I recommend you don't look at what folks are doing about every other major policy initiative throughout Congress.
