Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes at Lawfare make the rather obvious point that it is precisely the predictability of Roger Stone’s commutation that makes it so corrupt. Why did everyone seem to know this was coming? Because everyone knew that Trump couldn’t afford to have Roger Stone talking about what he did and what he knows about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Since Stone was scheduled to report to prison on July 14, the president couldn’t wait any longer. He had to buy Stone’s continued silence regardless of the price.

This is precisely the type of situation that requires recusal. Stone was convicted of crimes that involved the president. He was found guilty of lying to Congress and intimidating a witness in the furtherance of a coverup that protected the president.  Therefore, Trump shouldn’t have touched Stone’s case even with a ten-foot pole because it’s transparent bribery and obstruction of justice. But I always predicted this day would come  because I knew Stone would not go to prison for Trump. The deal between them from the beginning was premised on Trump never letting that happen.

The Washington Post editorial board is appropriated appalled, calling this “one of the most nauseating instances of corrupt government favoritism the United States has ever seen.”

The president seems to be doing his best, within the confines of the U.S. constitutional system, to emulate the gangster leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a man whose ruinous reign Mr. Trump has always admired. If the country needed any more evidence, Friday confirmed that the greatest threat to the Republic is the president himself.

No one at the National Review has yet weighed in on this subject, which shows how indifferent the right is to Trump’s criminality. David “Axis of Evil” Frum’s scribblings are no longer welcome over there. He has to take to The Atlantic:

Since Stone himself would have been in no legal jeopardy had he told the truth, the strong inference is that he lied to protect somebody else. Just today, this very day, Stone told the journalist Howard Fineman why he lied and whom he was protecting. “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.” You read that, and you blink. As the prominent Trump critic George Conway tweeted: “I mean, even Tony Soprano would have used only a pay phone or burner phone to say something like this.” Stone said it on the record to one of the best-known reporters in Washington. In so many words, he seemed to imply: I could have hurt the president if I’d rolled over on him. I kept my mouth shut. He owes me.

So, yes, anyone who cares to opine on the subject is well aware of what just happened because the motive was completely obvious and therefore predictable. Peter Baker at the New York Times obligingly tells us that this is worse than anything Nixon did, and that’s 100 percent accurate. Tricky Dick wasn’t above delivering large bags of cash, but he didn’t commute the sentences of the people who lied for him. Still, both are examples of bribery, and bribery is one of the few crimes enumerated in the Constitution as warranting impeachment and removal from office.

Nixon’s problem was that he didn’t have a Senate that would look the other way. Trump has folks like Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham who back this decision to the hilt.

Should Nancy Pelosi impeach him again for this? I can think of a long list of reasons why she shouldn’t bother, but I’d rather she did. I’d prefer to give the Republican Party one more chance to convict Trump before they formally make him their nominee in Jacksonville. It’s the magnanimous thing to do, since they must know that his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic is too costly to the country for us to endure. Convicting him is the only way out of the trap they created for themselves, and if they won’t take the gift, then all the more reason for the electorate to exact ruthless vengeance on them in the fall.