The Arpaio Pardon Is Ammunition Against Trump

[BloombergView]( [Early Returns]( Jonathan Bernstein]( My View colleague Noah Feldman, writing in advance of what Trump eventually did on Friday, suggests that a [pardon for former sheriff Joe Arpaio]( would be an impeachable offense. But another law school professor, Josh Chafetz -- who is at least equally appalled by the pardon -- nevertheless [cautions us]( to move beyond procedural issues surrounding this pardon. It's an abomination, Chafetz says, not because Trump is defying the courts or because he is ignoring normal procedures presidents use in pardon cases, but simply because what Arpaio did and what he symbolizes is horrible, and the president is siding with bigots and with those who abuse government power. I'm mostly with Feldman on this one. As an action alone, without context, Trump's pardon would certainly not be grounds for a legitimate impeachment. But that's not really how impeachment works. Context matters. And the reason this pardon is a problem (not to mention the news breaking over the weekend that [Trump pushed Justice to drop the Arpaio prosecution]() is because Trump and his administration have a pattern of lawlessness -- that, as former solicitor general Charles Fried [says](, Trump is "totally illiterate" in the "domains" of law and constitutional powers. The["abuse of power" article]( against Richard Nixon approved by the House Judiciary Committee mentions several items, not all of which are necessarily illegal, in which Nixon misbehaved while "using the powers of the office of President of the United States." It's not clear that any one of Nixon's actions would, by itself, have been sufficient; put together, however, the committee painted a picture of a president using his powers of office to subvert his constitutional role. Similarly, the record of the Watergate scandal suggests that single acts of obstructing justice were not, for most in Congress, sufficient. If they had been, Nixon could easily have been impeached and convicted a year or so before Congress finally moved forward in July and August 1974. The final straw (after the Judiciary Committee vote) was hard proof that Nixon had directed his staff in one particular and much denied obstruction of justice, but we shouldn't be misled into thinking that the "smoking gun" tape was the first evidence of obstruction; it was just, finally, enough for those conservative Republicans who had stuck with the president even after liberal Democrats, conservative Democrats, and moderate and liberal Republicans had already planned to vote against him. The Russia investigation continues, as does the tally of seemingly improper actions by the president in other areas. As I've said before, it seems to me that Trump has easily reached the minimum level of abuse of power and obstruction of justice that impeachment, conviction, and removal could be justified -- but not so much that it is imperative. In other words, it remains a political question for Congress, as it always must be, and one which (for now at least) presents lawmakers with difficult questions. But we also all know this won't be the last time Trump offends the constitutional order. The questions may get much easier.  1. Mary Stuckey at the Monkey Cage on how [Trump doesn't use the rhetoric of U.S. ideals](. 2. Meg Russell and Daniel Gover on [what the British Parliament actually does](. 3. Dan Drezner on the [choice of serving in the Trump administration](. 4. Francis Wilkinson on [commemoration and politics in Paris and in the U.S. South](. 5. And Philip Klein on why [single-payer will be a lot more difficult to pass]( than some liberals hope and many conservatives fear. Yup. And remember: Single-payer advocates not only have to convince Democrats in general, and the most conservative Democrats in particular, that it would be a fight worth fighting when and if the Democrats have the votes to enact things. They also have to convince the party that the difference between single-payer and the status quo plus modest improvements on health care should be at the top of the agenda, over climate and civil rights and wages and other Democratic priorities. Bloomberg L.P. ● 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 [Web]( ● [Facebook]( ● [Twitter]( [Feedback]( ● [Unsubscribe](