Biden Team Considering Pardoning Trump Foes
Abusing power to prevent the abuse of power?
POLITICO (“Biden White House Is Discussing Preemptive Pardons for Those in Trump’s Crosshairs“):
President Joe Biden’s senior aides are conducting a vigorous internal debate over whether to issue preemptive pardons to a range of current and former public officials who could be targeted with President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House, according to senior Democrats familiar with the discussions.
Biden’s aides are deeply concerned about a range of current and former officials who could find themselves facing inquiries and even indictments, a sense of alarm which has only accelerated since Trump last weekend announced the appointment of Kash Patel to lead the FBI. Patel has publicly vowed to pursue Trump’s critics.
The White House officials, however, are carefully weighing the extraordinary step of handing out blanket pardons to those who’ve committed no crimes, both because it could suggest impropriety, only fueling Trump’s criticisms, and because those offered preemptive pardons may reject them.
The deliberations touch on pardoning those currently in office, elected and appointed, as well as former officials who’ve angered Trump and his loyalists.
Those who could face exposure include such members of Congress’ Jan. 6 Committee as Sen.-elect Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming. Trump has previously said Cheney “should go to Jail along with the rest of the Unselect Committee!” Also mentioned by Biden’s aides for a pardon is Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who became a lightning rod for criticism from the right during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The West Wing deliberations have been organized by White House counsel Ed Siskel but include a range of other aides, including chief of staff Jeff Zients. The president himself, who was intensely focused on his son’s pardon, has not been brought into the broader pardon discussions yet, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
The conversations were spurred by Trump’s repeated threats and quiet lobbying by congressional Democrats, though not by those seeking pardons themselves. “The beneficiaries know nothing,” one well-connected Democrat told me about those who could receive pardons.
[…]
What has some Biden aides particularly concerned is that even the threat of retaliation could prove costly to individuals because they’d be forced to hire high-priced lawyers to defend themselves in any potential investigation.
Especially for those officials without significant means, the specter of six-figure legal bills in the coming years is unnerving. Some Biden appointees, I’m told by people facing scrutiny, are already considering taking the best-paying jobs next year in part to ensure they have the resources to defend themselves against any investigations.
Adding to Biden’s challenge in the final weeks of his presidency is the pressure he’s also feeling from Democrats who want him to offer the same generous clemency to those less privileged that he handed his son.
WaPo (“White House weighs preemptive pardons for potential Trump targets“) adds:
Among those being weighed for potential pardons are Anthony S. Fauci, who helped coordinate the nation’s covid-19 response; retired Gen. Mark A. Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has called Trump a “fascist”; Sen.-elect Adam Schiff (D-California), who led the first impeachment effort against Trump; and former congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming), an outspoken GOP critic of Trump.
[…]
The notion of sweeping preemptive pardons for offenses that have not yet been charged, and may never be, is largely untested. But most scholars agree the Constitution gives a president broad pardon powers that would be difficult to challenge legally.
Presidents generally issue pardons for specific crimes of which the defendant has already been found guilty. Biden’s recent pardon of his son was criticized in part because it was so sweeping, covering any federal crime Hunter Biden might have committed from 2014 to 2024, whether the offense is currently known or not.
In 1974, President Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor, Richard M. Nixon, for any crimes committed between Jan. 20, 1969, and Nixon’s resignation on Aug. 9, 1974. That pardon was never tested in court.
Some Biden supporters say broad pardons are now necessary, because Trump and his allies have attacked his critics in an unprecedented way, threatening retribution with little regard for the evidence. But other Democrats worry that Biden risks muddying the waters and leading voters to conclude that both sides are simply using the legal system for their own ends.
[…]
The prospect of preemptive pardons by Biden has received mixed reactions from Democrats.
Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-South Carolina), a longtime Biden ally, told CNN on Wednesday that he believed Cheney and special counsel Jack Smith should receive pardons, given the way Trump has threatened to go after them.
“I think that they should all be preemptively pardoned, because I think there are people who Trump may bring into this government who will go after these people in a serious way, and there’s no need to subject them to that,” Clyburn said.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pennsylvania) noted that Patel has spoken of prosecuting specific individuals, including those who have been investigated by or criticized Trump. Boyle and others have raised concerns about a list in Patel’s book “Government Gangsters” that names people he considers part of the “deep state.”
“The people they’re targeting include law enforcement officers, military personnel, and others who have spent their lives protecting this country,” Boyle said in a statement Wednesday. “These patriots shouldn’t have to live in fear of political retribution for doing what’s right. That’s why I’m urging President Biden to issue a blanket pardon for anyone unjustly targeted by this vindictive scheme.”
One of the people listed in Patel’s book is Sarah Isgur, a former Trump Justice Department spokeswoman and now a critic of the president-elect, who called the idea of blanket immunity for potential Trump targets a “dangerous precedent” in a post on X on Wednesday.
Executive branch officials should not be subject to politically motivated prosecution, she said, but they also should not be able to break the law without consequence. Besides, she said, pardons could be politically tricky for those who receive them and have to explain to the public that they did not commit a crime.
Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Massachusetts), however, raised Ford’s pardon of Nixon as an example of the healing nature of some such actions. If it appears Trump is intent on using the Justice Department for revenge, he said he would tell Biden to issue pardons so the country can move on from “acrimony.”
“If it’s clear by Jan. 19 that that is his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people, because that’s really what our country is going to need next year,” Markey told Boston-based radio station WGBH last week. Trump is set to take office on Jan. 20.
Aaron J. Rappaport, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, said that while there is legal precedent for preemptive pardons, in the past they have applied to specific charges or convictions that a president believes may be coming.
Blanket pardons — for any crime, known or unknown, within a particular period — have less precedent, Rappaport said, adding that Biden may be considering them because he does not know how Trump’s team may or may not prosecute the people Biden is seeking to protect.
“It’s very hard to predict what charges would be brought,” Rappaport said. “We’re not dealing with a situation where we can expect an ordinary use of the criminal justice process — or at least, the anticipation is it might be abused. It puts a particularly difficult burden on anyone attempting to identify specific offenses to insulate them from that abusive process.”
NYT (“Biden Team Considers Blanket Pardons Before Trump’s Promised ‘Retribution’“):
[A]s White House officials weigh the matter, they are concerned that such a move would fuel the impression spread in conservative media that the recipients had actually done something wrong. At least some of those who would be obvious candidates for such pardons have said privately that they would not want one because of such an implication. Others who are concerned about retribution have lobbied for their own pardons.
[…]
Mr. Trump, who has argued that the many criminal and civil cases against him are part of a sweeping “witch hunt” that has “weaponized” the justice system, has done little to disguise his desire to use the law enforcement system to get back at his foes. He has threatened to prosecute Democrats, election workers, law enforcement officials, intelligence officials, reporters, former members of his own staff and Republicans who do not support him.
He has said on social media that Ms. Cheney “should be prosecuted for what she has done to our country” and that the whole Jan. 6 committee “should be prosecuted for their lies and, quite frankly, TREASON!” He said that Vice President Kamala Harris “should be impeached and prosecuted.” He has promised to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after” Mr. Biden and his family. He has suggested that Gen. Mark A. Milley, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, deserved execution.
He has said that Letitia James, the attorney general of New York who won a $450 million judgment against him for business fraud, and Justice Arthur F. Engoron, who presided over the trial, “should be arrested and punished accordingly.” He shared a post saying that the police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 “should be charged and the protesters should be freed.” He has said that if Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, does anything deemed illegal, “he will spend the rest of his life in prison.”
Mr. Patel’s own list of “deep state” enemies includes not just Democrats but former Trump appointees who broke with him or were seen as obstacles, including John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser; William P. Barr, the former attorney general; Mark T. Esper, the former defense secretary; Pat A. Cipollone, the former White House counsel; Gina Haspel, the former C.I.A. director; and Christopher A. Wray, the current F.B.I. director.
“Trump and Patel’s threats of prosecution are real,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a homeland security official under President George W. Bush and a senior counsel to the independent counsel Ken Starr in his investigation of President Bill Clinton. “Biden has a moral obligation to defend all of those who risked their livelihoods for him and protect them, as best he can, from Trump’s authoritarian impulses. He should issue a pardon to anyone on Trump or Patel’s enemies list. It’s the least he can do.”
Some Democrats have echoed the argument. “The people they’re targeting include law enforcement officers, military personnel and others who have spent their lives protecting this country,” Representative Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania said in a statement. “These patriots shouldn’t have to live in fear of political retribution for doing what’s right.”
But other Democrats said it would reflect badly on the party, making it look as though it were only protecting its own rather than the most powerless in society.
“The Democrats should be for reforming and curtailing the pardon power,” Representative Ro Khanna of California said in an interview. “Black and brown individuals incarcerated because of marijuana possession have faced and continue to face far more injustice than some of the most privileged individuals who have served in the Congress or Senate.”
The whole thing is rather bizarre, and even floating the idea further politicizes the criminal justice system. But it’s undeniable that Trump has repeatedly threatened to use the incredibly powerful tools of the Executive Branch to go after those who he feels have wronged him and, as noted, defending against this would be ruinously expensive and otherwise life-altering even if they are ultimately exonerated. Preemptive pardons may well be the lesser of evils.
It’s absolutely true that Biden’s pardon of his son—and, if it comes to pass, these pardons—will be used by Trump to justify bad acts. But he’s going to commit those bad acts, regardless.
There is an unseemly quality, to say the least, of a lame-duck administration that has just been soundly defeated at the ballot box using its last days in office working against the things the winner pledged to do in the campaign. In the case of promises that themselves violate the fundamental principles of the republic, though, it’s hard to get too worked up over it.
“There is an unseemly quality, to say the least, of a lame-duck administration that has just been soundly defeated at the ballot box using its last days in office working against the things the winner pledged to do in the campaign.”
Tell that to the state governments in North Carolina and Wisconsin.
Trump and his cronies are degenerate, corrupt, fascists. We must fight them with every legal means. So of course Biden should preemptively pardon people who are going to be targeted by these Nazi scumbags. Tying our hands behind our backs because “propriety” is just f*cking nonsense.
Two thoughts:
First, I think we need to bring in the broader context of President-Elect Trump nominating Kash Patel for FBI Director. Patel literally published an “enemies” list of people who he would prosecute if he came to power, and many of said people are on that list.
Second, I think it would be useful to define what a “sound defeat” is. Are we simply talking about successfully being projected the winner on election night?
Did Biden soundly defeated Trump in 2020?
The predicate of a preemptive pardon is the assumption that crimes have been committed. IOW, innocent people don’t get or need pardons. All this would do, beyond being yet another norm-destroying ratchet – is plant the idea in people’s minds that those who receive these blanket, presumably sweeping, preemptive pardons actually committed crimes and Biden/Democrats cynically prevented any investigation or accountability.
I, personally, would not want the pall of a pardon over my head, in which everyone would assume I had done something wrong when I hadn’t.
And that wouldn’t stop investigations – Congress could subpoena and try to force people to testify, conduct politically motivated investigations, etc. There’s an open question about whether people who are pardoned can exercise 5th amendment rights on “crimes” they were pardoned for. What happens if they are pardoned for everything and anything? States are not prevented from investigating and prosecuting potential violations of state law.
IMO, this preemptive pardon idea is not only bad on the merits, it’s dumb.
@Andy:
“…innocent people don’t get or need pardons.”
They do if they are in the cross hairs of a president who will bury them in legal fees defending themselves in court regardless of their guilt or innocence.
Can they be exonerated rather than pardoned?
What did they do other than piss off Trump?
@CSK:
They made the felon look bad. They should feel so guilty about it, that they should beg a judge to put them in prison forever.
I prefer to see it thus: the less time the FBI and DOJ spend harassing, persecuting, and torturing innocent people, the more time and resources they will have to go after real criminal activities and actual malfeasance.
@Moosebreath: I don’t spend a lot of time analyzing local politics, especially of places where I don’t live. But, yes, I find it highly problematic when governors are preemptively stripped of powers because the legislature didn’t like the election outcome.
@Matt Bernius: I thought the Patel piece was dealt with enough in the quoted materials.
Yes, I think Trump was soundly defeated in 2020 and the Biden-Harris administration soundly defeated in 2024. Sweeping all of the “swing states” and every (nearly every?) county in the country moving rightward since the last time Trump was on the ballot is a rather resounding signal.
@CSK: A sitting president is not empowered to exonerate, absolve, acquit, exculpate, or vindicate a person. But there is precedent for preemptive pardons.
@Andy: true that Congress can investigate anything regardless of “pardon”, after all their role is to legislate, not prosecute. Sometimes it’s necessary to investigate in order to legislate.
But the FBI investigates to prosecute. If the road to prosecution is blocked by a pardon, what would be the purpose of an FBI investigation?
Patel has made it clear that as head of the FBI he would investigate for purposes of possible prosecution the political enemies.
It would seem that the only way to thwart political harassment from the FBI preemptive pardon.
@Rick DeMent:
The point is that pardoning innocent people makes them look guilty.
And the pardon would need to specifically say that it covers uncharged crimes – which begs the question. The entire presumption of the pardon power is that crimes have been committed which need pardoning.
The notion of using it to protect innocent people from spurious investigations and potential prosecutions is novel (at least until Hunter’s), and it only works if everyone agrees that’s what’s actually happening, which is not and won’t be the case, no matter how much Democrats tell themselves otherwise.
@James Joyner:
I mean, a win is a win. I am not so sure, even with the shifts you note, that winning by less than 2% is some remarkable signal.
Indeed, I am not sure that either an observation of closeness or about other signals, is really relevant here.
Lame duck governance is a problem, TBH, regardless of the scope of the victory (but that is a whole post in and of itself).
@Andy:
This is already an assumption in Maga land. It’s part of why the question arises.
BTW: I don’t like this discussion of preemptive pardons, but I also abhor the conditions that create the need to have the conversation in the first place.
Apart from any assessment of the merits of the discussion, let’s never forget why the discussion exists.
@just nutha:
And pardon’s will cause those magaland people to reevaluate their position?
Lots of people believe lots of bullshit.
The only way this action would make any amount of sense, IMO, is if one believes the entire justice system – at least at the federal level – is completely corrupted. And considering Biden threw his own DoJ under the bus with his Hunter pardon and accused them of conducting a political prosecution against his son, maybe that’s where Democrats are. I disagree.
Edited to add: Anyway, I have a super busy work day – this will likely be my last comment on this topic unless it comes up in future threads.
@Andy:
Pardoning people leaves the suggestion of guilt – so does an unjust prosecution. And there’s a ripple effect of spreading fear across any potential opposition.
The American people have chosen to dispense with norms, they’ve put a rapist in the White House – a rapist with fascistic intentions. This is not a normal time, this is political war, and as you well know, every war starts with one side declaring noble intentions and pretty soon they’re firebombing civilians.
You’re wrong about this. You’re suggesting preemptive surrender. We didn’t destroy the norms, Trump and his voters did. Fuck ’em. It’s time to fight.
@Andy:
Most of those who are threatened do not have the funds to hire attorneys nor have PACs to siphon off donations. Trump is notorious for conducting lawsuits in his private businesses. Just think what would happen with the resources of the Government at his command. Families would be ruined because people were just doing their jobs.
Hunter Biden is example #1. A private citizen that did bad but abnormally prosecuted and persecuted for political reasons. Example #2: Andrew McCabe who was fired on the eve of retirement. Had to fight for his earned retirement.
All of the people Trump has sued over the years would like to have a word.
I understand what you are getting at here, Andy, but Trump is in another category altogether. He has, as a standard practice of business, weaponized lawsuits–or even the threat of lawsuits. He’s a “billionaire” who DNGAF about other people. He’s known for hiring small businesses to do big jobs and then offering a third of the price when they finish. What are they going to do? Sue him?
Now he’s in an even bigger position of power. Liz Cheney has done nothing wrong. But you think he won’t go after her? He doesn’t care if he wins in court or not, the point will be to bleed her dry through endless court cases and appeals.
If Biden *doesn’t* issue blanket pardons, I think the next best thing he could do is solicit money for a legal fund to help these people out. Because it’s coming.
@MarkedMan:
Seen on Bluesky, can’t remember who though: “A norm that is only adhered to by one side isn’t a norm, it’s a trap.”
The American people voted for a Hobbesian state of “the war of all against all”, so it’s not clear to me why I should even care if this is corrupt or not. It’s certainly not hurting me personally in any way.
Pardon them or don’t pardon them – I’m agnostic on this. But for the love of *bleep*, stop leaking about “we’re considering” or “we might” and just do it or announce you’re not doing it!
@James Joyner:
My feeling is that this really speaks to intent to prosecute regardless of evidence. In the past–even the first Trump administration–this might be taken a bluster and political speech, but we are so far off the map that I don’t think we have the luxury of wait and see.
That is internally consistent. I’m still trying to work out my thoughts on the last election now that we have enough data to I think have more accurate takes. I agree that the swing needs to be taken into account–though I’m just not sure what that looks like.
@Andy:
I totally agree with the first sentence.
In a perfect world I agree with the second sentence. In the same world I think “innocent people don’t accept plea bargins” would be equally true.
However, we know we don’t live in that world, and there are lots of conditions under which people choose to accept plea bargains when they haven’t committed crimes. In the same way, it follows that innocent people will accept preemptive pardons–especially in cases where the laws are ambiguous enough to create a prosecutable theory.
The emphasis here should be on the need to even consider such actions. What Patel is threatening are the equivalent of SLAP suits. There is no basis for the idea that any laws were broken. The point of the investigations, just like with SLAP suits, is to inflict legal costs (and time costs) upon the people they investigate.
Steve
@Matt Bernius:
This deserves emphasis.
@Andy: Certainly nothing will change their minds, but there’s also no sense in caring how this action will negatively affect their perception either. The street runs both ways.
I don’t know whether the idea is good or not and am passionately ambivalent about carrying it out. Then again, I think we’re pretty much at failed nation status for the next 4 years and that the only difference between the US and Nicaragua is that it’s too cold to grow bananas here, so I may not be the one to ask.
The right to pardon is a ridiculous constitutional absolute power given to the president so he or she can use it as he or she sees fit. End of conversation. I would like to start a new conversation as to whether we should have such a constitutional amendment getting rid of such power, and who knows, if Biden’s pardons offend so many people to precipitate the conversation, the better.
The fun part is that acceptance of pardons for unnamed crimes would be probable cause to investigate for those crimes. Pardoning marquee names will not cover acts done by career government Democrats for their namebrand bosses. At a minimum, those people would need to be found out, fired or other disciplinary action, even if prosecutorial discretion meant to criminal action.
Even if the DOJ and Congress demurred, think tanks and activist groups could investigate, though without the ability to compel cooperation. And what of those who may have knowledge of possible crimes covered by the pardons. Certainly no reason not to “tell all” in their books soon to be flooding out about Biden’s admin if there is no legal risk to the named official(s).
@JKB:
And of course you are fine with using the DoJ to attack political enemies for crimes which cannot even be detailed. What crimes? The crimes of opposing Trump.
Are you ready to man up and embrace the fascist label? Or will it be like project 2025 where you all lie about it and then do it?
Apologies. I’m reposting this from the Forum Thread
I think it’s a bad idea, but I understand why this rumor is out there.
—–
@Michael Reynolds:
Bingo. It would be odd to claim Trump isn’t really an unprecedented fascistic threat because his antagonists aren’t acting accordingly, then cry foul when they act accordingly.
Biden using his legal authority to protect innocents from Trump’s promised retribution is indeed abnormal. But that’s because these are abnormal times — which the pundit class can’t accept.
It’s abnormal to have a rapist convicted felon president-elect who colluded with Putin, who incited a terror attack on Congress, who campaigned on unleashing our military on “the enemy within,” who said he needed Hitler-style generals, who illegally stored sensitive documents unsecured in a bathroom, and who has been described by his own chief-of-staff, vice-president, and top general as fascistic and/or Hitlerian.
It’s abnormal to have an incoming FBI director openly promising to attack an anti-Trump political hit list. It’s abnormal to have an AG pick pledge to attack prosecutors for doing their jobs. It’s abnormal she was chosen to replace an AG nominee who is a ephebophile crackhead.
It was abnormal for Trump’s MAGA Court to place presidents above the law by unilaterally rewriting the constitution, as it was abnormal for that Court to be formed by McConnell’s election year confirmation rule reversals.
The rejoinder then was that despite the norms, the rules allowed the Republican Senate such power. Voters are repeatedly endorsed this “disruptive” norms-shattering worldview. Democrats need to get in line with the will of the people, who want bold, disruptive leadership.
A two-party contest cannot work when only one contestant is expected to follow the rules. The double-standard is no longer tenable or appropriate in the MAGA era. The electorate rewards Republicans for destroying rules to elevate felons, druggies, oligarchs, and sex criminals. So Democrats can certainly *bend* norms for the good of working Americans, the disadvantaged, and patriots.
The rules do not neuter lame duck presidents or their executive power. And anyone tuned into the news enough to know about or care about a Liz Cheney pardon would also be news literate enough to know Trump threatened her with a miltary tribunal.
Sadly, most of our brothers and sisters are so low info or busy struggling that they won’t notice or care either way.
@Andy: Well Hunter is guilty, but that’s no the point. The only people who are making a big deal out of this are Republicans and people with too much time on their hands.
Trump lies before lunch more then anyone on the planet. Trump released a string of dodgy pardons and none of his supporters gave one damn fig about it.
Sorry but we know know that the president can now do any damn thing they want to, norms be dammed. That is what letting a criminal like Trump get away with it has given us. Why should Biden tie his own hands behind his back, Trump won’t.
Personally, I think Biden should go ahead and pardon most people on the enemies list or anyone they have a good idea that Trump is going to come after. However, I don’t think he should pardon any Republican or conservative on that list other than Cheney and Kinzinger. Cheney can rot in hell for all I care, but she did the right thing and we all applauded her for that, we should protect that. Not for her, but because we believe in doing the right thing. I also think Biden shouldn’t pardon himself. He could have done a lot more to stop this in so many ways over the last 4 years and he didn’t. The best thing he could do now is to martyr himself.
I could be persuaded to Andy’s general point, but a think a more honest version is fuck them, if they have something to hide that needs a pardon, fuck them. If they’re innocent, fuck them anyway, they’re innocent, they’ll be fine eventually. I want to be super super clear, I don’t think Andy is being dishonest in any way. I just think they way he gets to that result is off. I think his framing is too cleaned up and fancy and should be better stated clearly as, “well, fuck them”.
SCOTUS Republicans handed Trump a big “get out of jail card” with their immunity ruling.
And Trump will likely be pardoning all the January 6th actors. Note: he already said so before Biden pardoned his son.
This “high ground” expectation of the Dems is not working out for this country. Holding them to a one sided standard ensures and they’ll keep coming to the knife fight with a notepad and a book of Hoyle’s Rules.
If there is any doubt, this coming Trump term is going demonstrate that we are beyond rules, guardrails, and guidelines.
So, no more Mr. Niceguy.
I’ve said before the big issue with breaking norms and doing as you please, is that eventually the other party will be in power and do likewise.
Ins’t it time the Democrats and Biden begin to prove me right?
@Andy:
I agree to a degree, but I can’t label it dumb. Were I one of the people whom the presumptive FBI director had sworn to go after for political vengeance, after I had done nothing wrong, I would have a different opinion. We’ve have never had conspiracy theory spewing angry political hacks running the top LE and judicial systems before, and this is a radical change. Pretending things are as they have always been would be dumb.
One of the universally accepted rationales for asylum is the belief that a person will be unjustly prosecuted.
Given the clear and obvious unjustness of the Trump admin’s declarations of political persecutions, we should applaud a blanket pardon for anyone on their enemies list.
Also, nitpick: Harris was not “soundly defeated”, she lost by the narrowest margin in modern history. If you’re going to invoke the will of the people, this ain’t the case for that.
Absent a blanket pardon, and maye even with it, I’d advise as many as these people as possible try to settle in Canada, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, or any other country that has a robust rule of law system in place, and won’t bend at a scowl from el felon.
Extradition is a diplomatic request, after all, and can be declined. If not declined, it can be contested in court.
@James Joyner:
Resounding signals ain’t what they used to be. Of the 51 presidential elections held since 1824, Trump’s 2024 popular vote margin is the 44th narrowest (his 2020 win is 51 of 51) — and Republicans lost a seat in the House. The final result in the lower chamber of Congress was D +1. MAGA will enjoy history’s slimmest House majority.
How can this be? What does it signal? National discombobulation perhaps, but does it signal that Democrats have no constituency — that we must bow, scrape, and genuflect before the awesomeness of MAGA’s 49%? Not bloody likely.
During Biden’s presidency, Democrats were routinely scolded with references to the other “half of the country.” That sword cuts both ways — even though you’d never know listening to the punditry and its handmaidens.
@Chip Daniels:
Oh come on. Innocent people don’t need asylum. /sarc
@Andy: Would this same standard of appearance of criminality apply if, say, Biden pardoned Trump?
@Not the IT Dept.: I think it’s a good tactic, let’s you map out resistance and puts the Trump camp in reaction mode. A mode they aren’t normally in nor operate well in.
So Dr Joyner, authoritarian regimes, particularly Russia and their various child models across the world are infamous in using show trials against rivals to undermine their credibility and reinforce narratives of criminal conspiracy with their supporters.
What is your suggested strategy for Trump’s political opposition to counter this? Beyond clutching pearls while letting it happen?
I don’t think you fully understand that soviet style politics (minus the assassinations–which may be next) are now the mainstream of American politics. I wish it weren’t so–but the genie is out of the bottle– if you can name one successful case of a political group that blunted these techniques by “going high”. I’ll admit you have a point. There are none. When there is a race to the bottom you don’t get to not race.
But these articles about norms amount to telling a boxer who suddenly finds himself in an MMA match that if they don’t win using the rules of boxing they lose. Boxing is such a restrained level of fighting that the likelihood of victory against an opponent using much less restraint is lucky at best.
The play in these cases is to beat the opponent at their own game IN ORDER TO reset more restrained norms.
Joe Biden needs to continue to flex on these guys because it’s powerful. They don’t like it–but they respect it. In fact, it’s one of the only things they do respect. The show trials of Fauccis under under under deputy of whatever will not be the same effect as Faucci himself. Which means Trump will likely not pursue it. He must Command eyeballs and reaction. You don’t palpably understand the hate the average RW Joe has for Faucci–I do. I listened to it in person for years with a straight face. The RW hate machine whirls and the automatons obey. Frankly, it’s amazing how effective it is. These people want a pound of flesh and the Trump Administration can’t not give it to them. Their rage must be appeased.
@Jim Brown 32:
A lesson liberals and progs have a hard time remembering: you have to win in order to save democracy. Fuck right off with that noble loser bullshit.
A problem with preemptive pardons that I haven’t seen discussed here is that they won’t cover future acts, which leaves it to the future DOJ to gin up accusations and probable cause, and to generally be creative in its harassment of the administration’s political foes. So I’m not sure a blanket preemptive pardon will help much, although it will almost certainly draw fire. However, for General Milley or Liz Cheney, who have been specifically threatened with execution or trial by military tribunal for no specific crimes, it would be appropriate for Biden to privately offer a pardon on the basis of those threats.
Speaking of being harassed by the Feds, I watched the documentary Janis Ian: Breaking Silence last night. Really good–hated to step away for just a quick bathroom break. Anyway, her dad was a chicken farmer who attended meetings on egg prices, was branded a communist, and received multiple visits by the FBI–a reminder of what the Feds would do during the McCarthy and Hoover FBI eras.
@Michael Reynolds:
Well, I think you are exactly wrong about this. I would ask you to consider exactly what dying on this particular hill accomplishes. How precisely do you expect this action to advance your cause? Democrats are the party of government and institutions, but now you’re saying that abrogating all of that means “fighting.” To what end? Don’t try to bullshit anyone, and wave away the downsides and negatives of Biden doing what no other President (including Trump!) in history has done by doing what’s being proposed here.
You say it’s time to fight as if Democrats have sat by and done nothing. The fact is that Democrats have been fighting for a very long time. The problem isn’t a lack of will or a lack of “fight” but picking dumb engagements and dumb hills to die on where you and your co-partisans are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to winning actual elections, which is the what parties are supposed to do. Stupid virtue signaling and chest-thumping or raging on a hill of sand isn’t “fighting” unless the only thing you care about is counting coup. This is just another example of the kind of own goal that has resulted in your party losing to Trump (the worst candidate in my lifetime and probably history) twice, which is quite an accomplishment.
@Andy: “The predicate of a preemptive pardon is the assumption that crimes have been committed. IOW, innocent people don’t get or need pardons. All this would do, beyond being yet another norm-destroying ratchet – is plant the idea in people’s minds that those who receive these blanket, presumably sweeping, preemptive pardons actually committed crimes and Biden/Democrats cynically prevented any investigation or accountability.”
What part of ‘retribution’ and enemies list do you not understand?
@Andy: “I, personally, would not want the pall of a pardon over my head, in which everyone would assume I had done something wrong when I hadn’t.”
That’s because you are a Republican, living under the knowledge that Democrats don’t do that.
@DK: “Biden using his legal authority to protect innocents from Trump’s promised retribution is indeed abnormal. But that’s because these are abnormal times — which the pundit class can’t accept.”
IMHO, the pundit class *loves* Trump. He provides endless excitement.
They also assume that this is like a foreign war, to which they can visit for tourism punditry, before flying back the safe USA.
They’ll do this even as some of their own are … ‘dealt with’.
@Barry:
Barry, you keep coming here and saying this – for years now it seems. It’s really stupid. I’m not and have never been a Republican. But for people like you who can’t seem to see anything beyond a partisan binary, criticizing Democrats is the same thing as being a Republican – well, I’m here to tell you – again – that isn’t true.
I understand it perfectly well. I also understand that taking the worst-case view of that and then ignoring all the downsides and consequences of the “pardon everyone for everything” is not good or sound analysis. It would be more convincing if people like you would at least acknowledge that there are downsides and made some attempt to explain how all the negatives of this potential action result in a net positive.
@Jim Brown 32:
QFE.
@Andy:
“It would be more convincing if people like you would at least acknowledge that there are downsides and made some attempt to explain how all the negatives of this potential action result in a net positive.”
This has been a topic of discussion. The point is that the negatives are largely theoretical, and based on ignoring the history of the GOP and Trump.