So I’m a big @jacklgoldsmith fan but as I delve into the spreadsheet I’m increasingly skeptical of the methodology—in particular the very capacious definition of “advance political agenda.” 1/ https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/1342099100280487948

For example, there’s Daniela Gozes-Wagner. Here’s the WH’s description of her case. As far as I can tell, she’s a random person who got caught up in the criminal justice system and got what appears to be a draconian sentence. She’s not a politician & had no connection to Trump.2/

One would think this a great example of a disinterested commutation. But she’s actually listed as an example of example of advancing Trump’s political agenda. Why? Because “there was significant Republican support for the commutation.” 3/

This qualifies her as a case of political clemency even though there was also “some Democratic support.” Now, this is very different than categorizing the Hunter and Collins pardons, or the Flynn and Stone pardons, as political. 4/

In fact, Alice Marie Johnson—what I thought of as the emblematic case of the praiseworthy use of the clemency power—is also categorized as an “advancing political agenda” commutation, although here the “political agenda developed after the pardon!” 5/

There are many other similar examples in the chart. 6/

This approach to defining what is a “political” pardon strikes me as problematic and uninformative for multiple reasons. (1) It’s subjective and arbitrary. Wagner’s commutation was supported by both Rs and Ds. But it’s considered political because apparently 7/

more Rs supported it than Ds. How many more? We’re not told. What’s the threshold to make it political? 55/45? 60/40? 70/30? Moreover, it’s unclear why certain cases are described as advancing Trump’s political goals because they were supported by Republicans but not others. 8/

For example, Rubashkin is described as not advancing Trump’s political agenda. But why? Many Republican (and Democrats) supported it just like Gozes-Wagner. And it too helped Trump politically—just like Alice Johnson. (Just ask any ultra-Orthodox Jew why they support Trump.) 9/

And this brings us to the more fundamental objection to the way Goldsmith defines “advancing political agenda.” It implicitly assumes that presidents ever do anything that doesn’t advance their political agenda in some vague sense. But that’s obviously wrong! 10/

Neither the Alice Johnson not Gozes-Wagner advanced Trump’s political agenda in any direct sense. Now, did they advance it in the vague sense that they make him appear kind? Sure. Did they possibly buy him goodwill in certain communities? Probably. 11/

But the same could be said of literally every act of clemency in American history! Was Obama’s commutation of Manning political in this sense? Yes. The simple fact is that if a pardon didn’t advance a president’s political agenda in some vague sense ... it wouldn’t be granted.12/

I’d suggest that this sort of advancing the president’s agenda is not only not pernicious but is often salutary in our democracy. At any rate, it’s unavoidable in a democracy. President’s are politicians, after all. 13/

In short, @jacklgoldsmith conflates truly pernicious political pardons (a congressman who endorsed the president) with cases where a pardon is political only in the sense that it makes the president appear merciful or pro-criminal justice reform. 14/

TL;DR the Goldsmith pardon breakdown (which is being quoted extensively in the press as authoritative) obscures more than it informs. 15/15