The unpardonable idea that Trump will escape justice

Plus an informed defense of AM radio in cars

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Become a paid subscriber to receive each Picayune Plus in your email inbox each Tuesday and join our civil and productive commenting community.

Would Trump say ‘pardon me’?

Of course he would! The idea is fanciful that if former President Donald Trump were convicted of the 37 felony counts he now faces in federal court in Florida then re-elected, we’d have an incarcerated president; an oval office without a toilet seat. But of course he would pardon himself instantly if outgoing president Biden wouldn’t do so in a gesture of comity. Then he would go about pardoning every single person convicted for their actions at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

If Trump is somehow not the Republican nominee, a loud faction of the Republican base will be demanding a promise to pardon Trump and the 1/6 insurrectionists. Democrats must bang their shoes on the table about this through the entire election cycle, demanding answers and even pledges from the Republican candidates about allowing justice to take its course or not, about giving “get out of jail free” cards to those who beat Capitol police offices and terrorized Congress.

The pardon power — at both the presidential and gubernatorial level — is absurdly broad and stands to make a total mockery of our justice system.

Some legal scholars argue that a president can’t pardon himself, but as Ilya Shapiro wrote for the Cato Institute in 2020:

Stanford Law School professor and former federal judge Michael McConnell has explained that two days before the Constitutional Convention approved the Constitution, a move to narrow the pardon power because “[t]he President himself may be guilty” failed, despite support from James Madison. As James Wilson, who would become a member of the first Supreme Court, argued, if the president “be himself a party to the guilt, he can be impeached.”

Shapiro’s conclusion is sweetly naive:

Even if the president has the power to pardon himself, he shouldn’t exercise it. And if he does—at least where he pardons himself to stop an investigation or prosecution that threatens him personally or politically—then he should be impeached.

Trump would laugh himself sick at the prospect of another feckless impeachment trial.

The time for a constitutional amendment to curb the sweeping power of U.S. presidents to erase and amend the workings of the justice system was 23 years ago — January 2001 — when Democratic President Bill Clinton issued 140 pardons and 36 commutations on his last day in office, most notably a pardon to fugitive tax cheat Marc Rich, whose ex-wife was a generous donor to the Clintons and other Democratic causes.

Or maybe it was more than 30 years ago — Christmas Eve 1992 — when lame-duck Republican President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others who were implicated in illegal acts connected to the Reagan-era Iran-Contra scandal. This was just 12 days before Weinberger was facing a trial that stood to reveal the extent of Bush’s own complicity in the shenanigans when he was Reagan’s vice president.

The unconditional power of a president to shorten sentences or nullify convictions for federal crimes is a vestige of the divine rights of kings, and it exists to “soften the rigor of general law,” with compassion and proportion, as noted 18th century jurist William Blackstone wrote. But installing guardrails on this power to discourage capricious, cynical, self-interested or downright deranged abuses of it, as many states do in limiting the pardon powers of their governors, is so sensible it should inspire strong bipartisan support of the sort we are, of course, unlikely to see.

The ideas out there for amending the Constitution include an amendment specifying that all presidential grants of clemency be subject to revocation by supermajority votes in Congress, or to require advance approval from a quasi-judicial screening panel similar to the advisory Illinois Prisoner Review Board.

Another is to minimize conflicts of interest by prohibiting presidents from issuing commutations or pardons to friends, colleagues, prominent supporters, family members or themselves, a notion that sounds good until you consider the difficulty of defining most of those categories for legal purposes.

I want this topic to come up at every debate, at every press gaggle, so that voters truly consider the insult a Trump reelection would be to the rule of law that the Republican party ostensibly embraces.

Why it’s not a big ask for automakers to continue to put AM radios in cars

With more than 800 click-votes cast, a solid 60/40 majority of Picayune Sentinel subscribers last week registered support for Congress’ efforts to to mandate AM radios in new cars in light of the efforts of some automakers to get rid of them.

Rich Warren, a former Tribune electronics columnist and the current contributing tech columnist for the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette wrote to offer some reflections on the controversy.

Warren was also the long-time host of WFMT-FM’s weekly “The Midnight Special” program.

It costs the car manufacturer almost nothing extra to include the AM band in the chip for the radio. In fact, the AM section is still in the chips that automakers will be using but the software simply doesn’t allow access to it.

The only additional expense is the AM antenna, which is now usually embedded in the windshield. It's optimized for FM, but still works for AM. There's minimal expense in this design unless you need to replace the windshield.

Second, the idea that the design of modern cars, whether internal-combustion or electric, causes AM interference is just not true. That interference easily and cheaply can be filtered out or avoided.

What’s really going on is that most new cars will come with cellular internet connections from which the automakers will gain a commission.

My new car comes with TuneIn radio, Spotify, and Pocketcast apps among many others. There's even a cellular beta of Sirius/XM that does not rely on the satellites. So through TuneIn radio I can choose among scores, if not hundreds, of AM and FM stations in North America and around the world. This will change the whole dynamic of radio. Of course, if you're out of range of a cell tower then it sure is nice to still have that ol' AM radio.

Finally, some so-called experts are saying that the space occupied by the AM band could be put to better use. This is completely bogus. The AM band is such a tiny piece of spectrum (just over 1 mHz) that it's nearly useless for anything else. A single TV channel is 6 mHz. Also, the long wavelengths of the AM band don't lend themselves for use in cell phones or data transmission.

Yes, AM is an antique. It sounds terrible. But as long as broadcasters want to pour money into programming and powering the transmitter, then all radios should include it. I suspect that it will die on its own without the help of the automakers in a decade, simply because AM broadcasters have bought FM frequencies on which to simulcast as well as streaming their programming. t

Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited —- along with my responses

Re. Mayor Johnson to the suburbs: Keep our city's name out of your mouth!

Skeptic — "You're not from here!" has been and always will be with us as a rhetorical tool to deflect criticism. It does not make sense and it has no logical end. It can be used to imply north siders have no business commenting on what happens on the south side, for example. If that is the case then, should journalists who do not live in the Loop be allowed to comment on city plans for it?

Bobby K. — Any person can have an opinion about the City of Chicago, good, bad, or indifferent, But ultimately those opinions do not matter as much as mine — a life-long, tax-paying resident of Chicago. Hate/Love the Mayor, City Council, our Sanctuary City status, the CPS/CTU, FOP, whatever and so what. I have to live with all of these, for better or worse, and my voice through a vote, will make a difference. So (surprisingly) I agree with Mayor Johnson - keep our name out of your mouth.

Wendy C. — As long as I live in "Chicagoland" I'll say whatever I damn well please about the city. The people of the collar counties probably spend more money in Chicago than all other tourists, many work in Chicago as well. They pay sales taxes, parking fees, fees for entertainment, sports, educational experiences at the many museums, plus enjoying the popular restaurants and parks. I think they have the right to both compliment and criticize the city they help support.

Marc M. — The mayor should consider the opinions and commentary of those that do not live in the city if he is concerned about attracting new residents, tourism, convention business, attracting suburbanites to entertainment venues, attracting/retaining business offices, attracting developers/investors, ridership on regional transit, and asking the state and federal government for funding. It might also be important if he decides to proceed with one of his ideas to tax suburbanites for the privilege of working in the city, increase corporate taxes, return the head tax, increase hotel taxes, or introduce a city income tax. Maybe 'F*** em all" is not the best message for the mayor to send to the unworthy outsiders.

Jake H. — I don't think anyone on principle should shut the fuck up about anything or get any name out of their mouths, to use the recently popular though grating and painfully theatrical formulation. Sure, maybe Johnson had in mind Fox News in Naperville rather than lifelong suburbanites, but I really don't begrudge any outside commentary as such, just as I reserve the right to think badly of, say, San Francisco's leadership on homelessnesses or education, even though my association with the place consists of one brief visit and reruns of Monk.

It's more than a nagging detail of our identity-focused discourse that people feel increasingly authorized to argue by means other than the merits of one's points or position and instead argue by means of endless variations on the old ad hominem.

Zorn — I’ve had many interesting conversations about this issue in the last week, and Johnson’s defenders on this point say that he was simply addressing the nay-saying Chicago bashers from near and far who don’t really understand the city and how to contextualize its problems.

And I agree that the ignorant haters should put a sock in it. Including the ignorant haters who do, in fact, live in the city. But we should encourage critics with tough, informed observations and constructive ideas to speak out, no matter where they live.

If that’s what Johnson meant, he should have said so. This was not an offhand quip to a reporter or an overheard bit of snark, but part of a prepared speech. Such words matter, and getting them right is important.

Rick Wi. — I had the opportunity to attend the May 31 CPD Police Recognition Ceremony and Luncheon where Johnson delivered that controversial sentence as part of his remarks. I spoke with members of command staff and rank and file. There was not a bad word said regarding Mayor Johnson. The general theme was that Johnson seemed genuinely interested in having a good relationship with the department, and conversely, they wanted a good relationship with him. They have a common goal and both sides realize that cooperation is the starting point. At this time, I would say, despite the bluster that sometimes comes out of the FOP, the situation is hopeful and they realize that the great challenge they face will necessitate them working together.

I hope you’re right and I believe that both sides here know the value of a cooperative relationship. The time for bluster is gone. The summer is upon us. We’ll know soon enough how it’s going.

Re: “‘Legitimate’ comment or an ugly, malicious and false cartoon?”

Michael M. —There’s still room in American editorial cartooning for a mild liberal. Not so for a mild conservative like Tribune contributor and former staff cartoonist Scott Stantis. They are either revolted by Trump and MAGA and let their work say so (like Stantis does), or they set up shop on the far right, where the oxygen is. In these terrible times for newspapers and editorial cartoonists, who the hell would spend money on a mild conservative?

Dan P. — The whole point of political cartoons is to target traits, mannerisms and yes, personal things. My gosh, every president has been the target of this over time. And depending on your viewpoint, it has angered you or made you laugh. I'd wager that Donald Trump had more cartoons attacking him than any president ever has. Heck, everyone is still obsessed. Keep ‘em coming. We'll like some and we'll hate some. As we should.

Ann T. — I’m sick of the criticism of Biden that automatically equates age with senility. He is a canny politician who genuinely wants to heal our divided nation. His admin has accomplished more than anyone would have imagined possible without much help from the other side and largely without gloating. The cartoons and comics go for the low hanging fruit. Don’t we all hope we can make it to our 80’s with the brainpower he has? We need to revere the knowledge and wisdom accumulated by living a long life and stop mocking the natural physical decline of aging.

DancesWithDogs — I view editorial cartoons as less 'ha ha' and more a twist on news stories. Yes, Kelley is in the sad habit of beating dead horses, but his Feinstein/Biden cartoon does reflect some recent news coverage, and not only on Fox. I would prefer to have Scott Stantis back. He made you think a lot more.

Zorn — I love Scott Stantis. Personally he is simply a great guy. As an artist he is skilled, and though his opinions occasionally infuriate me I find him provocative and as fair as the blunt medium of cartooning allows. And he is still cartooning for the Tribune! He’s just not on staff anymore.

BobE — You used at least variations on the adjectives "ugly", "malicious" "false", "toxic", "ageist" "hideous", "trollish" and "disgusting" to describe a Kelley’s cartoon. But what about “facetious” or “farcical?” I thought editorial page editor Chris Jones' reply to you — that Kelley’s take was “legitimate,” was spot on, and I am neither conservative nor a Republican.

Phil — Chris Jones' non-responsive response to your question was disappointing, verging on insulting. Rather than address the issue, he countered with "well, other people don't like our liberal cartoons," while offering an example that didn’t begin to rise to Steve Kelley's ugliness.

Zorn — I certainly understand the difficulty of running a balanced, fair opinion section during an era of extreme polarization. And I try to check my own political leanings when evaluating how well any such section — or news operation or broadcasting outlet — is doing on that score.

But opinion unmoored from fact is simply irresponsible. Imagine this. Imagine a cartoon that shows one voter saying, “I could never vote for Chris Christie; he‘s too fat to be president,” and another voter responding, “Yes, he’s almost as fat as Donald Trump.” The reader would simply say, “What? Trump is overweight but demonstrably not as overweight as Christie. That’s just stupid.”

And so it was with the Feinstein/Biden cartoon above. Feinstein has exhibited many signs of severe cognitive decline. And whether or not you think Biden’s gaffes and physical/verbal stumbles are evidence of a troubling increase in senescence, it’s manifestly false to suggest he is worse off than Feinstein.

No serious newspaper would ever publish an op ed or column that tried to make that point.

If I’m Jones, I look at a cartoon like that and say, “Nah. This is poisonous claptrap unbefitting a serious publication, and it ill-serves our readers and our mission to foster healthy discourse. We can do better. We should do better.”

Marc M. — I did not think the Kelly cartoon was funny or effective because the comparison was so clearly off base. Even those that think the president is too old and has issues would not say Sen. Feinstein is in better condition. But I thought he was mocking Democrats that find Sen. Feinstein's age and infirmities obvious and in need of immediate action while completely denying and discounting President Biden's infirmities.

Zorn — I don’t know many Democrats who think questions about the fitness of an 82-year-old man to be president (the age Biden would be if and when he’s sworn in for a second term) are out of bounds. In fact 52% of Democrats told AP/NORC pollsters in April they didn’t want Biden to run again.

Joanie W. — Mike Luckovich had a good one about the Republicans falsely and repeatedly suggesting that Biden is already suffering from dementia. It came out right after the debt ceiling deal was done:

Etc.

Susan B. — I have been a long-time 7-day subscriber. I just love getting a paper every day. In January and February when we were traveling, I put my delivery on a vacation hold. Both holds were ignored and newspapers piled up on my porch. Feeling fed up, I canceled my subscription on March 9. I am still receiving papers. Maybe I shouldn't complain about getting the Trib for free, but again last month while we were traveling, my neighbor said they were piling up again.

Zorn — I never had this problem, but it would seem to expose the company to legal liability if your home is burglarized while you’re on vacation.

Rick A. — I just received a notice in the mail today that my Tribune e -subscription would be changed from a 6 month billing to a 4 week subscription at a substantially higher rate. I called and was able to get it changed back to the old 6 month rate, however I was told I need to call back on the renewal date to get a refund on my credit card for the overpayment. Crazy, as the renewal date is 2 weeks from now. I'm sure they are depending on me forgetting to call and not getting it back. Why do they make it so difficult?

Zorn — I believe in your last two sentences you ask and answer your own question. But maybe you can get a better answer from publisher Par Ridder — pridder@tribpub.com. He ignores all my emails.

I got a postcard Monday from the Tribune subscription department as well. I’ll be writing about that in Thursday’s main edition.

Rick We. —I didn't like ANY of this week's Tweets. Twitter continues its relentless trek toward oblivion. Wish there was a way to vote thumbs-up or -down on the Tweets that you allege you find amusing.

Zorn — I do actually find most of them amusing. There are some weeks where I include finalists that are borderline funny in my opinion because that’s all I’ve found in my curation efforts. Not voting is the only way to register your dissatisfaction, as I measure the success of each week’s lot by the overall number of votes cast. This week’s batch had 9% fewer votes than the previous week, for example.

Ya gotta see these tweets!

I often run across tweets that rely on visual humor and so can’t be included in the Tweet of the Week contest (the template I use for that poll does not allow me to include images). Here are a few good ones I’ve come across recently:

Vote for your favorite. I will disqualify any tweets I later find out used digitally altered photos. I’ll share the winner in Thursday’s main edition.

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!

I liked these, too

I saw many iterations of these words on this image from the Trump indictment last week, some of them commenting on the garish absurdity of the chandelier lighting and the flimsy cheapness of the tension rod holding up the shower curtain.

Also this piquant juxtaposition from @OhNoSheTwitnt

And this..

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

.