Granted, it's not surprising that the news media hasn't asked the “right questions” regarding these pardons; more often than not those of us in this business succumb either to the obvious or the easy, but rarely to the important. Such laziness has led to much of the public's political apathy and distrust of both the media and the lowlifes we cover in Washington, D.C.
But in an effort to atone for this sin, I'll ask them here and now, with some help from an avid reader and constitutional expert who brought them to my attention.
To begin with, most politicians, political analysts and partisan hacks have said unequivocally that Clinton, as president and under the authority of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, had a “right” to pardon more than 170 people in those final hours of Jan. 20 — including the most unsavory of the lot, the 44 or so that were not subjected to Justice Department review and included such traitors as Marc Rich.
According to Stanley J. Trohimovich, chairman and founder of the committee to Restore Our American Republic (ROAR), one of the nation's foremost constitutional study organizations, Clinton may not have had the authority to pardon Rich because, for one thing, Rich has renounced his U.S. citizenship.
Trohimovich questions the legality of granting “Pardongate's” most notorious figure because, he asks, since Rich is no longer a citizen, “is there authority (jurisdiction) to act?” He says that without a grant of jurisdiction to act, no official action can occur.
Also, in order for a constitutional pardon to be issued, an “offense against the United States must have occurred.” Rich fled the U.S. to Switzerland in 1983, before some 59 counts were filed against him by the Justice Department and well before any trial — and resultant conviction — took place.
“Rich was not convicted of an offense against the United States. A future conviction of Rich is speculative and does not fulfill this requirement,” Trohimovich said.
“The person convicted must have been within the jurisdiction of the United States. No one has shown that non-citizen Marc Rich was within the jurisdiction of the United States after being convicted of the required offense,” he continued.
Makes sense to me. And though Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which discusses the president's pardon power, does not mention the jurisdictional argument, it certainly does say a president “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States. …”
Rich, legally speaking, has yet to commit “offenses” against the U.S. because he has yet to be tried in a court of law and found guilty of having committed offenses against the U.S.
Furthermore, by implication and using “jurisdictional” guidelines in other portions of the Constitution, Trohimovich's contention that Clinton — or any president — is forbidden from pardoning non-citizens is rational, plausible and unmistakably clear.
Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution was set to examine presidential pardon power because, as a spokesman for the committee told me on Tuesday, such an examination hadn't been done in “over 100 years.”
I'd bet a handful of Federal Reserve notes that Trohimovich's assertions were not even on the radarscopes of any lawmakers and other “experts” called to testify.
Not that it would matter. I asked the spokesman pointedly, “What's the point of this examination? What is going to come of it?” I got no real answers to those questions, which led me to believe this is just another exercise in futility — a “show” hearing designed to make it look like somebody gives a damn but was never intended to produce any changes or alter current results.
Trohimovich's points come as rumors are flying that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., is prone to let this “Pardongate” inquiry die in at least the Senate and, perhaps, the House as well. Also, it's well-known by now that President Bush's “let's move on” attitude is a thinly-veiled signal to congressional members that he is neither interested in getting to the bottom of all this nor inclined to do much about it if someone actually does.
In short, and though I've atoned for my sin of omission by “asking” these important questions, I fail to believe that in the end, they will be asked in a legitimate forum where somebody with some power can actually answer them cogently and, if proven correct, implement the necessary action to get some of Clinton's most controversial pardons overturned.
It doesn't look like Marc Rich is planning to move back to the U.S. anytime soon. But Trohimovich's arguments should be explored and, if found valid, implemented anyway, just in case Rich someday gets a nostalgic pang and wants to revisit the “motherland.”
Furthermore, this avenue should be explored if for no other reason than to clear up this mess before a future president makes similarly outrageous pardons.
It's happened once; it would be naïve beyond belief to assume that it won't happen again so we shouldn't “worry” about it now and instead should just “move on.”
For a related article click here.
(This article can also be found on WorldNetDaily.)
