Blanket pardons are a trickier issue than the chronically online left thinks. As a lapsed lawyer, I think that acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt. That’s why Adam Schiff, Adam Kinzinger, and Liz Cheney have already ruled out accepting such a pardon. Additionally, they have Congressional immunity for the J6 committee, so Trump’s threats are even emptier than usual. He’s not the only one who can play the immunity game.
The presidential pardon power is broad and sweeping. The courts have found it to be nearly absolute. Even the MAGA SCOTUS is unlikely to rule otherwise: their boy Donald has pardons on his mind. He reiterated his pledge to pardon Dipshit Insurrectionists on MTP on Sunday. I believe him: whitewashing January 6, 2021 is high on the Trump agenda.
How the MAGA maggots will react to a blanket pardon of anti-Trumpers should NOT be considered by the White House or anyone else. They’ll blow it up into a huge deal regardless of where Team Biden lands. Flooding the zone with shit is what they do.
I’m feeling unusually equivocal about the whole idea of blanket pardons. I understand that with Kash Patel and Kim Bondi in charge of federal law enforcement, concerns about unjust prosecutions are reasonable. Despite the Insult Comedian’s claim on MTP that it will be up to them, they’re sycophants who will follow orders. But getting indictments and convictions are two very different things. Intimidation and financial ruin could be Team Trump’s real goal. Lawyers are expensive.
My main problem with the blanket pardon idea is that it feels like surrendering in advance to the looming autocracy. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. Appeasement doesn’t work.
A legal defense fund should be established for everyone who could run afoul of the potential Bondi-Patel axis of evil. I say potential because while Bondi is a shoo-in to be confirmed several things have to happen for Kash Patel to become FBI director including the departure of the incumbent director. Repeat after me: Wray should make the fucker fire him.
The onus for all this should be placed on the man who started the conversation, President-elect Pennywise. I think his bluff should be called: is he just talking shit or is this real? His threats should be taken seriously, not literally. I’m inclined to agree with Kinzinger who said:
This is an unusual post. I usually start writing with a firm opinion on the matter at hand. This has been more of an exercise in thinking out loud. I’m unsure where to land on this issue but people have been asking my opinion and I had to do more than post a picture of Linus and his blankie. A security blanket would come in handy right now.
The last word goes to The Band:
Easy enough for elected officials to say “Bring it on” to potential criminal prosecutions. They have the shield of the Speech or Debate clause. But a private citizen, perhaps someone whose name rhymes with Punter Tiden, is in line for financially ruinous litigation over the most spurious charges. How many taxpayers go on trial after they’ve paid their back taxes, penalties and interest in full?
Though I suppose the Speech or Debate defense might be getting teed up for the current Supreme Court to decide once again that “settled law” isn’t quite so settled after all.