Mark Penn, special counsels, and consistency
I spend a lot of time reading the work of other writers on politics. Some of them—probably the vast majority—purport to be objective journalists but write with an obvious bias. What’s so obvious about it? Well, one thing is that they never break with the talking points or the party line on their side. Funny thing, but their side is always right, the other side always wrong, and that’s the case even when the facts on each side might look remarkably similar and you’d think the same arguments should apply to both.
I have a great deal more respect for the far rarer group of pundits who sometimes find themselves defending the opposite side. By “opposite side” I don’t always mean “opposing party.” Sometimes the person is defending someone he or she previously hasn’t approved of but who is on the same basic political side. A good example of that sort of thing would be Andrew C. McCarthy defending Trump and criticizing Mueller during the collusion investigation; although McCarthy is on the right he has never liked Trump.
But sometimes it truly is someone on the opposite side, such as Democrat Alan Dershowitz’s spirited defense of Trump—a person Dershowitz can’t stand, didn’t vote for, and probably will never vote for—to the horror of most of Dershowitz’s friends and admirers, who think he’s gone over to the Dark Side. I have long admired Dershowitz for his legal acumen and the clarity of his advocacy, but this incident only makes me admire him more.
Lately we’ve also had Democrat and Clinton-buddy Mark Penn. I mentioned him recently in this post, and I noticed today that he’s come out with a strong attack on Mueller and defense of Trump—with the argument that it’s for the good of us all. Here’s the money quote:
This process must now be stopped, preferably long before a vote in the Senate. Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again…
Stopping Mueller isn’t about one president or one party. It’s about all presidents and all parties. It’s about cleaning out and reforming the deep state so that our intelligence operations are never used against opposing campaigns without the firmest of evidence. It’s about letting people work for campaigns and administrations without needing legal defense funds. It’s about relying on our elections to decide our differences.
The blurb on Penn after the article contains this description of his history: “Mark Penn served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, including during his impeachment.” It’s also true that Penn was an influential advisor to Hillary Clinton during her successful Senate campaigns and her unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008.
In other words, Penn is a guy one might expert to be spearheading the Trump investigation and impeachment push, not opposing it. But in the interests of consistency, and of protection of the political process against the weaponization of the special counsel against that process, he is taking a very consistent stance. It can’t earn him credits in the eyes of most of his cronies, but for what it’s worth it earns him credits in mine.
Penn explains himself further here:
To Penn’s mind, an investigation such as this one ”” especially given its unbounded nature ”” will always be detrimental to the operation of a successful administration and federal government. “I think a lot of people see it as a sporting event: ”˜Just get the president! What difference does it make?’” he explains. “They think it’s a wholly legitimate tool to use against a president and an administration you don’t like. My attitude on that is, if you don’t like him, vote him out. Introducing these elements into politics is a kind of tool. It had a bad impact in ’98, and a bad impact here.”…
“What’s unprecedented here is the fuzziness of the accusation of ”˜Russian collusion,’ which led to the prosecutors examining everybody in the campaign, getting every email and piecing together virtually every meeting about everything, and then investigating everybody in the White House, in this search for that one contact with Russia that might prove it,” he says.
According to Penn, this process could very easily dissuade people from joining campaigns, presidential administrations, or other parts of the government, because it will lead them to believe that to do so could put them at risk of facing costly legal fees, FBI investigation, and possible prosecution. “We can’t run a campaign, democracy, or government under this kind of open-ended investigation,” he argues.
By the way, I also was against the impeachment of Bill Clinton and am against the continuing investigation of Trump, so I’ve been consistent too. I have different reasons for being against each, but I’m with Penn on the idea that you have to have good evidence to begin such an investigation and its scope should be circumscribed. I would go further and say that you should only pursue it if the issue is one of abuse of state power or a really high crime.
I keep saying that some day I’ll write a long post (or probably series of posts) on why I was opposed to the Clinton impeachment and continue to be opposed today, but I haven’t done it yet and it’s a huge topic. However, I touched on some of the arguments in this comment thread and in particular this one as well as this. And please follow all the links; it’s complicated. And that’s not even inclusive; there’s much more.
First Dershowitz.
Now Penn.
Fighting for the honor of liberals and the Democratic Party.
Who else will join them?…as the writing begins to take shape on the wall….
Barry,
At least in Penn’s case, I’m not inclined to think he’s fighting for honor. Or that his motives are honorable.
I think he’s smart enough to see where this leads and what it will do, not just to his country but to his side: He’s cognizant of the consequences. Unlike the bulk of his Fellow Travelers.
Fractal Rabbit,
You are most likely correct about Penn’s motivations. But any little baby step from the left to acknowledge the ‘collusion’ conspiracy stinks across the solar system is a good thing.
I agree as to Penn. I agree as to Nixon. I disagree as to the rightness of Clinton’s impeachment. Clinton engaged in a series of misdemeanors that revealed and demonstrated his complete unfitness for the office he held. A morally upright populace would have forced his resignation.
Clinton’s misdemeanors started with where he received sexual acts from Lewinsky. It was incredibly disrespectful to engage in sexual acts in the oval office. Only taking a dump in the middle of that hallowed ground could have been more disrepectful.
Then he lied (knowingly told an untruth) directly to our faces.
Then he swore an oath on a BIBLE to “tell the truth and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH” and proceeded to EVADE the truth.
All of that proved his utter unfitness for the office. That fitness relies on more than the avoidance of high crimes. It requires a character at least somewhat commensurate with the obligations of that office. That Americans have so often failed to elect a President worthy of the office is a reflection on them. But that failure does not absolve the elected from their own duty to fulfill the obligations of the office for which they have sought.
Well, you may be right, but hey! let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
(Maybe that’ll start a surge of something quite valuable that’s been far too absent from the public discourse…. To be sure, there’s “a time to give benefit of the doubt; and a time not to…”)
Geoffrey Britain:
The impeachment of Clinton wasn’t just wrong, it was stupid.
Do you really think presidents should be impeached for “lying to our faces”? If so, there would hardly be a president left standing. That’s an utterly absurd standard.
And although being fellated in the Oval Office is not my idea of respect for the office of the presidency, I think to say it is an impeachable offense is also absurd.
And by the way, I can think of many acts that might be listed in between fellatio and taking a dump on some sort of respect/disrespect scale.
But the reason it was also stupid is that you don’t impeach a president unless there’s at least a chance, a decent chance, of convicting him. There was never a chance of that happening to Clinton.
Although perjury is not the subject matter of your comment, please take a look at this re perjury.
One of the women who works for us is a Brazilian immigrant. At the time I asked her if she thought Clinton should be impeached. She said, “ You have to, otherwise you become Brazil”.
I think Gingrich was too full of himself and overplayed his hand, especially showing the video of Clinton’s testimony which was supposed to be kept secret. Instead it made Clinton look human and not the sleazy scum that he is. After all, he’s a master con man.
Had it been me I would have kept twisting the knife and twisting it until I got him to kill the four departments of the government that were on the chopping block, one of which was Education. I’d have taken impeachment off the table at that point with the threat to bring it if he stepped out of line.
I didn’t think Clinton should be impeached, but then, once the process was underway, I thought he should have resigned “for the good of the country.” Gore would have become president and been in good position for the 2000 election. Clinton would look selfless — to some extent, anyway. The country was somewhat paralyzed while the impeachment process went on.
Al Gore’s character had not yet been fully revealed. And maybe he would have been different, had he not lost in the way he did in 2000 to GWB.
I thought less of Bill Clinton when he clung to power the way he did.
miklos000rosza Says:
May 21st, 2018 at 10:08 pm
I didn’t think Clinton should be impeached, but then, once the process was underway, I thought he should have resigned “for the good of the country.”
* * *
I don’t know what Gore would have become had things played out as you suggest, but I know what Clinton was.
Two of our boys made Eagle Scout during his tenure; we did not request the usual presidential letter of congratulations because of the hypocrisy his signature (stamped, of course) would represent.
Somewhat OT, but my all-time favorite in this “opposite-side” genre is the otherwise cringe-worthy Susan Sontag, on Communism:
The whole speech is great. And its rightly best remembered for her “fascism with a human face” formulation. But the “Reader’s Digest” quip was a wonderfully cruel twist of the knife.
neo,
Politically, it was stupid because the moral fiber to hold him accountable was utterly lacking not just in Congress but in the public as well. Which simply proves my point. It is indicative of a society that fails to hold itself to a basic standard of morality and thus elects Presidents so commonly lacking in basic honesty that the expectation of common decency is an “utterly absurd standard”.
Nor can I agree that a President engaging in sex acts in the oval office is merely a personal “idea” of disrespecting the office. As SCOTUS famously ruled about pornography, you don’t have to define it to recognize it.
Clinton obscenely disrespected all that is contained in the Founding Father’s pledge ; “We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor” that led to the creation of that office.
So yes, I do think that the chain of misdemeanors Clinton engaged in required impeachment and removal from the Presidency.
I too can think of other acts but that came to mind as undeniably disrespectful… even for liberal apologetics.
You and I agree that there wasn’t a remote chance of successfully removing Clinton fré²m office. That the offenses easily justified that removal is where we may disagree.
I’m also in agreement that technically Clinton did not commit perjury. That he evaded the truth after swearing an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth… is another matter. Far more than any legal consideration is his behavior having established his unfitness for the Presidency.
Those Americans in denial of that self-evident truth have lost their moral compass.
Clinton engaged in a series of misdemeanors that revealed and demonstrated his complete unfitness for the office he held.
That is true and I remember Sam Donaldson speculating on when he would resign when the “blue Dress” story came out. Still, I thought impeachment was a mistake because the Senate would never get 2/3 to convict.
I also agree about Gingrich who was completely outmaneuvered by Clinton.
Criminalization of political acts does not end well. In the past it has been used as a cudgel to literally beat someone’s opponents.
When one can lose a job because of donations to a political cause it is a sign of a culture in decline.
While I remain, as ever, an optimist with regards to humanity in general, the future of our particular culture does not seem bright.
For example:
Bill Ayres was an advisor to a former President of the United States. He advocated ‘re-education’ and mass murder of millions of his countrymen who did not see fit to share his politics. Yet he is considered an honored member of today’s academy. This is a bad thing. Yet the political left revels and delights in such horrible thoughts. They simply aren’t astute enough to realize that almost always after a ‘revolution’ the intellectuals are murdered and the thugs take control.
Cambodia anyone?
IIRC, several officials of the Clinton Administration were left with six-figure legal bills after inconclusive federal investigations. I believe Penn may have been one of them.
The Whitewater investigation started out satisfactorily (gaining convictions of the McDougals and Gov. Tucker in May 1996, among others) but went off the rails after the spring of 1997. James McDougal died before he could give evidence he’d agreed to, Susan McDougal was amazingly stubborn in her efforts to protect the Clintons (serving 18 months on a criminal contempt charge rather than testify with a grant of immunity), and they never got the goods on the people who were madly passing cash to Webster Hubbell (in the form of ‘consulting fees’) during the interval between his conviction and disbarment and when he reported for federal prison.
The root problem is what Conrad Black has called ‘the federal prosecutocracy’ and our process-is-the-punishment court system. It is this which needs to be addressed.
Clinton’s career is indicative of the decay of the culture. So is Trump’s, though in Trump’s case he’s engaged in some culture-improving activities seldom acknowledged. (Not since Spiro Agnew has someone so prominent aimed both barrels at the humbug of the age).
Can anyone make sense of the 1992 election? IIRC, post-hoc survey research indicated that Ross Perot drew about equally off the other candidates, who his candidacy does not explain George Bush’s loss. We’d had a mild recession which had lasted about 8 months, a decisive (if incomplete and somewhat demoralizing) victory in a small war, didn’t have severely out of kilter macroecnomic indicators (the federal deficit aside), and had had a reminder of how the Democrats had handled law enforcement in the form of the Los Angeles riots. Yet, the public opted for a draft dodger and known adulterer over a combat veteran and echt family man. It made no sense.
Art Deco,
Perhaps I can provide some insight into the election of 1992. At that time I was a political independent and social liberal with as it turned out deeply buried conservative/libertarian leanings.
I reluctantly voted for Perot. Initially enthusiastic about him, his later vacillations greatly lessened my enthusiasm for him.
As for Bush, despite his WWII heroics, I had never really warmed up to him but I had no active feelings of dislike for him. More relevantly, a “faked news” report of his expressing surprise at grocery scanners, left me with the impression that he was completely out of touch and thus unlikely to be able to effect an economic recovery.
Early on I had sensed that Clinton was a conman and never considered voting for him. To my chagrin, years later I learned that Clinton’s ‘miraculous’ economic turn around was actually Bush’s. Clinton’s economic advisers convinced Clinton to leave in place the corrections that Bush had started.
At that time, I was a liberal low info voter and easily manipulated by the mass media that I trusted. A year after Clinton was elected, I started to occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh and he was the catalyst for the beginning of my political change.
PS: Initially, I was frequently outraged at Limbaugh’s assertions and put off by his bombastic self-promotion. I could only listen so long before switching the station. Gradually, over many months he cracked my political illusions. I came to see that what he was saying far surpassed in importance his abrasive style of delivery.
I don’t read these journalists or click on their link baits.
If I want bias, I can look in a mirror for that. It’s free after all.
Clinton should have been impeached because of his visits to Epstein’s sex trafficking business. But we all see District of COlumbia looks out for their own. Just giving William Clinton a brush over for constitutional appearances, was enough respect and face.
The emails on Hillary’s server weren’t investigated.
Since they were literally calling for his impeachment before they even took office, I have no doubts a Democrat-controlled House will make it happen, and come up with an excuse afterwards. And I have so little faith in Republican Senators that I expect enough of them would be more than happy to play along.
On the other hand, “President Pence” has a nice ring to it, that is if there’s not a full-blown Civil War…