When is the Pardon a Perversion of Justice?

US presidents have an absolute and unlimited power to pardon anyone who has committed a federal crime or even to pardon someone who is awaiting trial.  Although a president cannot pardon himself, he can pardon someone who’s committed a crime on his behalf (for instance, a person who refuses to testify in an impeachment process.)

On November 15, 2019, the President intervened in several military war-crimes cases and pardoned three members of the military.

• Former Army Lieutenant Clint Lorance was serving a nineteen-year sentence for ordering his men to fire on three Afghan civilians, killing two.  Members of his own platoon had testified against him, he had falsified reports in order to cover up the crime, and his conviction had been reviewed and approved by the Court of Military Affairs.  The President, nevertheless, gave him a full pardon.
• Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn had not yet been tried but faced murder charges.  He had confessed to the murder.  His trial was to begin soon.  Rather than wait for the military justice system to handle it, however, Trump also gave him a full pardon for his alleged offenses. 
• The case against Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL was seemingly less serious.  While he was charged with indiscriminately shooting Iraqi civilians, threatening a fellow SEAL in order to cover up these incidents and posing for photographs while standing over a dead ISIS fighter, technical irregularities in the court-martial resulted in dismissal of all charges except the last.  Trump ordered the restoration of rank and service medals that had been taken.

In each case, the President overruled the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army and the unanimous opinions of other military officers, including the juries of their peers that convicted the soldiers.  Several retired military generals spoke out that the pardons “undermine decades of precedent in American military justice that has contributed to making our country’s fighting forces the envy of the world.”  Trump’s pardons for murders were also unprecedented in American history.  Karen Tumulty writes,

Several times the president described the treatment of these service members as “unfair” even though a thorough investigation … comparable to a civil grand jury trial, had been conducted to establish probable cause. Furthermore, the courts-martial members in each case were officers or peers of the accused. All were also combat veterans who fully understood the so-called “fog of war” and the need for quick decision during urgent and dangerous situations.

As above, there is no question that the President has full constitutional authority to pardon these men.  But questions remain: Why pardon these particular men?  Why pardon someone convicted of murder?  Why now?  What will be the long-term impact on the military and on our democracy?  

As far as is known, there were no mitigating factors in these cases that warranted pardon.  (Officer Gallagher seems to have benefitted from his mother’s plea on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program.)

The generals’ protests against Trump’s pardons, were primarily on the basis that they would weaken international protections against war crimes and the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that is responsible for discipline within the armed services.  Without accountability there is no discipline. 

It is hard to imagine any except political reasons for these pardons, and the White House offered none at all.

 When the commander-in-chief refuses to hold accountable soldiers convicted by military courts martial, military discipline is upended.  When the President pardons for political reasons, the entire democracy suffers.

Trump Runs Out the Clock

As a wealthy real-estate developer before his successful bid for the presidency, Donald Trump frequently countered challenges to his businesses or to himself personally by manipulating the legal system.  One of his primary tactics was to use multiple appeals to stretch out the already-protracted legal process until his opponent was forced to give in.

Potential challengers quickly learned the cost of confronting Donald Trump.

As President, Trump has continued this waiting-out tactic, so far quite successfully.  He is refusing to provide any documents to Congress to or allow any of his subordinates to testify in the impeachment proceedings.  Most of this stonewalling is not constitutionally permissible, for it abrogates Congress's ultimate responsibility to provide a check on presidential power through the impeachment process. So in order to circumvent and delay, Trump has either sued Congress or allowed Congress to sue him. Trump claims Executive Privilege, but Executive Privilege covers only very limited situations, mostly concerning national security or confidential conversations between presidents and their immediate advisors.  The vast majority of presidential actions are not covered by Executive Privilege.  Presumably, therefore, the President will eventually lose most these suits in the courts, as he did in the recent ruling against his keeping former counsel Donald F McGahn II from testifying.  Not surprisingly, Trump's lawyers have already appealed the court decision so the legal process will delay McGahn's testimony until after the impeachment proceedings are concluded, when that testimony will probably be moot.  Trump loses the court decision but his tactics will win anyway. 

Not coincidentally, the Republican defense of the President has in many cases rested on dismissing what they call “hearsay evidence.”  The direct first-hand testimony to counter this defense could undoubtedly come from exactly those people whom Trump is preventing from testifying: Mulvaney, Bolton, and so on. Trump wins again.

It's important to recognize what is happening here.  As Stephen Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt point out in How Democracies Die, democracy requires a respect for the democratic process.  This respect includes not only for the law but also for the "soft guidelines" of politics, which they identify as:

• “mutual toleration”—leaders don't treat political rivals as existential enemies, but rather as fellow loyal Americans;
• “forbearance,” or “restraint”—leaders don’t “play politics to the max”; that is, they don't use every legal power they have a right to in order to destroy their rivals.

Democracy is not possible without the soft guardrails.  President Trump has been willing to push them systematically, sometimes to breaking. 

To be successful, the impeachment process must convince the American public that the President should be removed.  So far, the proceedings have not moved the needle of Trump's favorability in the polls.  The prolonged legal proceedings will assure that the most convincing evidence against Trump will not be public until long after the Senate votes on the President's removal from office.

It is possible that the Supreme Court will take some of these cases directly, bypassing the regular appeals process.  Given the makeup of the court and the support for a strong executive, especially among Trump's appointees, however, this is unlikely.  Even if the Court did expedite the process, it would not be in time for the impeachment proceedings (although congressional investigations would continue).  Once again Trump wins.

It may be that Trump and his defenders do not consider this "cheating."  And in a legal sense, it isn't.  Once again, however, the soft guardrails upon which the democracy depends have been breached, and large segments of the public have either not noticed or not cared. But democracy's fragile supports have been weakened further.