On the question of whether a president can pardon himself, we're seeing an abundance of knee-jerk partisanship and dishonest journalism.— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2018
If you are old enough, you remember Bill Clinton (in a deposition, if memory serves) arguing about what the definition of "is" is. Watch carefully as Ted Cruz, renowned debater who is supposed to be the scourge of his opponents in argument, steps all over his...tie...yeah, his tie, in trying to sound outraged and injured while also trying to say nothing at all while also trying to argue about...well, what the meaning of "is" is:
If we were actually focusing on the Constitution, the answer would be more complicated. The text of the Constitution provides, the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2018
However, in the 1970s, the Department of Justice did issue a legal opinion that the president cannot pardon himself, relying on the principle that nobody can be the judge in his own case.— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2018
Whether the Department of Justice opinion is right is an open legal question, with scholars on both sides of the political spectrum disagreeing in good faith.— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2018
When reporters chased me down the hall, and another asked the question again, I chose to answer.— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2018
They cite a law review article I wrote saying that Obama's executive amnesty was illegal, and that the pardon power did not justify it.— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2018
I'll pause here to say I've read excerpts of that article, including a footnote some seem to think is now hypocritical, and I don't find anything in that excerpt that proves anything against Cruz, or anything about the question of a presidential self-pardon. He's not wrong, in other words; that law review article really doesn't apply here. But that's a lawyer talking, so whaddo I know?
Both are straightforward legal propositions; neither is implicated because they do not concern WHOM can be pardoned.— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2018
This is not a question one should answer based on knee-jerk partisanship, as opposed to careful constitutional analysis.— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2018
At this point, none of the investigations has demonstrated any criminal conduct needing to be pardoned, as much as those who hate the president might wish otherwise.— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2018
This all started because Cruz did his best impression of a landed fish in the halls of the Senate:
24 hours later, Cruz digs in with a non-pithy response that really doesn't say anything except "reasonable people can disagree" on the legal question because it has never been presented before, and it really does turn on what the meaning of "pardon" is, or "President," or even "crime."Alright, folks. Here's the audio pic.twitter.com/3UhsX3f8Jh— Haley Byrd (@byrdinator) June 4, 2018
Still not sure where the "knee jerk partisanship" and "dishonest journalism" comes from. You can go back to the tape for the latter; what's "knee jerk" about being appalled at a President who says he can pardon himself? Yes, it is a case of first impression (as the lawyers say), and there is a reason it has never been presented before ("L'etat, c'est moi!" being a primary explanation), but Cruz dare not say that and disturb his Trump supporting GOP Texas base. OTOH, he dare not say the President has the powers of the Sun King. So he waffles, in 17 tweets that manage to make no argument at all, including a rebuttal of the fact that he did wait 18 (or was it 20?) seconds before answering the question put to him. Although he does manage to say it's a "close" question and imply he's not sure whether he'd impeach Trump for using it on himself, or not; which is a revealing answer in itself. It's revealing, but it's not at all bold and forthright. Besides, this guy is the Debate King! He was the Solicitor-General of Texas, his primary job was getting interrupted with questions in oral arguments before appellate courts. And he can't handle a reporter asking a question in a Senate hallway?
I think Beto O'Rourke should debate Cruz, and press him on what powers the President has. Cruz, after all, as a Senator, has to decide whether Trump's exercise of those powers would exceed his Constitutional authority, should it come to an impeachment trial. And Senators, as I've pointed out before, are not jurists; they are free to have opinions about the case long before it is presented in an impeachment trial. I think we know where Sen. Cruz stands; it would be a legitimate issue to press him on that stance, especially since it sure seems he prefers a Sun King in the White House, over a President.
No comments:
Post a Comment