Muted Outrage Over Trump Pardon Outrage

Only a handful of Republican Senators have objected. Mildly.

While most of us expected President Trump to pardon those convicted of nonviolent offenses for their part in the Capitol Riot, most were stunned when his clemency* included even the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Even his Vice President was adamant that wouldn’t happen as recently as a week ago. Yet, despite warnings otherwise, it appears the backlash from Republican leaders will be minimal.

Aaron Blake, NYT (“The GOP’s stunning response to Trump pardoning those who assaulted police“):

When the idea of pardons for Jan. 6 defendants first circulated, the pushback from Republican senators was pretty swift. And even the few who entertained the idea drew a line at pardoning the violent ones.

“I think there is a stark difference between acts of violence and peaceful protest,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, calling acts of violence “qualitatively different” and “unacceptable from any political perspective.”

“To seek a pardon of these people would be wrong,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) told Fox News. “I think it would destroy President Trump, and I hope we don’t go down that road.”

Graham even said that such a move “reinforces violence.”

But now that President Donald Trump has gone there and granted clemency to every Jan. 6 defendant — including those who assaulted police — the response from Republicans has been strikingly muted. And some are even giving Trump a nod of approval, a remarkable episode that shows how Trump gradually lures his party to vouch for the previously unthinkable.

Few GOP lawmakers ventured voluntary statements on the matter after Trump on Monday night issued clemency. When they were asked about it Tuesday, a handful of critics emerged.

Among the most outspoken was former Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), who told Semafor: “No one should excuse violence. And particularly violence against police officers.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy (Louisiana) offered similar comments, telling reporters, “People who assault police officers, if they do the crime, they should do the time.”

“I’m disappointed to see that, and I do fear the message that is sent to these great men and women that stood by us,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) said, referring to the Capitol Police officers who were assaulted.

Sen. Thom Tillis (North Carolina) added: “Anybody who is convicted of assault on a police officer, I can’t get there, at all. I think it was a bad idea.”

Plenty of other Republicans didn’t seem to want to engage or offered muted responses.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (South Dakota) said he was not “looking backwards” and claimed the blanket pardons were actually done on a case-by-case basis. Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) indicated she was unfamiliar with the pardons but would disagree with them if they were for violent offenders. Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) emphasized that it was Trump’s prerogative.

But perhaps most remarkably, some even approved:

Sen. Ron Johnson (Wisconsin) told Fox News that he didn’t want to pardon violent offenders but that the Justice Department’s handling of the cases made him fully supportive.\

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (Alabama) said that he was “100 percent” for all of the pardons and that the defendants had served enough time. When pressed on those who assaulted police, Tuberville said that was “not acceptable” but that he “didn’t see” the video.

Sen. Jim Banks (Indiana) added that it was a “disgrace how all of these people were treated” and said that because Trump had previewed his plans and won the election, his action was justified.

In fact, Trump didn’t firmly signal a desire to pardon violent Jan. 6 defendants, either before or after the election; at one point, he even suggested he was focused on nonviolent offenders. Also, polling has shown Americans pretty strongly opposed the idea of pardons more broadly, and especially pardons for those who assaulted police.

McConnell and the handful of other dissenters are, alas, Susan Collinsing. They will say the right thing but, when it comes time to do anything about it, they’ll fall in line.

Outside the Republican conference, anger is more widespread.

NYT (“‘A Betrayal, a Mockery’: Police Express Outrage Over Trump’s Jan. 6 Pardons“):

When inmates are released from federal prison, the Justice Department places a call to their victims, notifying them that the defendant who attacked them is now free. On Tuesday, the phones of U.S. Capitol Police and D.C. police officers were buzzing nonstop.

For Aquilino A. Gonell, a former Capitol Police sergeant, the automated calls began on Monday evening and continued into Tuesday morning after President Trump issued a sweeping legal reprieve to all of the nearly 1,600 defendants, including those convicted of violent crimes, in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Between 7:03 a.m. and 9:37 a.m., Mr. Gonell received nine calls from the Justice Department about the release of inmates.

Mr. Gonell, who was assaulted during the attack and retired because of the injuries he suffered, was as outraged and distraught as he was shortly after the violence.

“It’s a miscarriage of justice, a betrayal, a mockery, and a desecration of the men and women that risked their lives defending our democracy,” he said of the nearly 1,600 pardons and 14 commutations.

More than 150 police officers from the two agencies were injured during the assault on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob four years ago. Some were hit in the head with baseball bats, flagpoles and pipes. One lost consciousness after rioters used a metal barrier to push her down as they marched to the building.

Now many of those officers described themselves as struggling and depressed in response to Mr. Trump freeing their attackers.

[…]

Still, some of the officers who were victims that day are pledging to fight on.

“For anyone who cares about truth and respect for law and law enforcement, his pardons are an unspeakable outrage,” said Patrick A. Malone, a lawyer for seven officers who sued Mr. Trump over the attack.

“The officers I represent will not forget!” Mr. Malone said.

Harry Dunn, one of the most outspoken officers who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6, spent Monday and Tuesday checking in with his former colleagues.

“Everybody’s angry and sad and devastated,” said Mr. Dunn, who has left the Capitol Police.

One officer, Mr. Dunn said, went to bed after a long shift only to be awakened by an automated voice mail from victim services informing him of the release of a Jan. 6 defendant.

“Every officer who testified in court is now getting these automated calls that, ‘Hey this defendant is being released,’” Mr. Dunn said. “The number of calls people are getting, it’s unbelievable.”

Axios (“Police union that endorsed Trump blasts Jan. 6 pardons“):

President Trump’s near-total pardon of Jan. 6 rioters was denounced by the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union in the U.S., and the International Association of Chiefs of Police on Tuesday.

The groups said they’re deeply discouraged by pardons and commutations made by both the Biden and Trump administrations of individuals convicted of killing or assaulting law enforcement officers.

The groups said in a statement they firmly believe those convicted of such crimes should serve full sentences.

“Allowing those convicted of these crimes to be released early diminishes accountability and devalues the sacrifices made by courageous law enforcement officers and their families,” per the statement.
“When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts of violence,” the unions said.

[…]

The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024.

That they endorsed the man who instigated the riots over a former prosecutor is beyond me. Leopards, faces, and all that.

A couple of our commentators yesterday apparently weren’t watching the news on January 6, 2020. Thankfully, NPR has a summary (“Trump gave pardons to hundreds of violent Jan. 6 rioters. Here’s what they did.

Matthew Graves led the office that prosecuted all of the Jan. 6 cases. He told NPR, “there’s no wiping out the public record, there’s no undoing these prosecutions.”

Over 1,100 people had already pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial, and sentenced in connection with these cases. Most had finished their punishments, except for those who were serving longer sentences for engaging in violence at the Capitol, Graves said.

“The actions taken by the President disproportionately benefit the most violent among the mob,” Graves said.

The FBI under its previous director, Trump-appointee Christopher Wray, called the Jan. 6 attack an act of domestic terrorism. The Department of Justice estimated that more than 140 police officers were injured by the pro-Trump mob. Officers have described injuries from the attack including cracked ribs, traumatic brain injuries, smashed spinal discs and a heart attack. In several cases, officers have said they’re still coping with post-traumatic stress from the hourslong violent assault.

Rioters used bats, flags, chemical sprays, poles and stolen police shields and batons to beat officers. Several rioters were convicted of charges for carrying loaded firearms in the melee. In the four years after the insurrection, prosecutors brought charges against more than 1,500 people. Many of those charged said that they stormed the U.S. Capitol specifically because they believed Trump supported their actions. Most defendants pleaded guilty to the charges they faced. Prosecutors obtained guilty verdicts in nearly all of the cases that went to trial.

[…]

Here are some of the people convicted of violence on Jan. 6, who received “full, complete and unconditional” pardons from Trump:

David Dempsey was convicted of repeatedly assaulting police officers with pepper spray, a metal crutch and wooden and metal poles. “For over one hour, defendant David Dempsey viciously assaulted and injured police officers,” federal prosecutors wrote. Metropolitan Police Department Detective Phuson Nguyen testified that after Dempsey pepper sprayed him, he was knocked down, and “I thought that’s, you know, where I’m going to die. And in my head, you know, I was thinking about my family at that point before anything else.” Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Julian Khater pleaded guilty to pepper spraying Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick in the face. Later that night, Sicknick collapsed and was rushed to the hospital. He died the following day. According to the Washington, D.C. medical examiner, Sicknick’s death was due to “natural causes” — two strokes — but “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” Sicknick’s mother, Gladys, spoke at Khater’s sentencing hearing. “Lawlessness, misplaced loyalty to a deranged autocratic ideal, and hate killed my son,” she told the court. “And I hope you are haunted by your crimes behind bars. Whatever jail time you receive is not enough in my eyes.” Khater was sentenced to more than six years in prison.

Christian Matthew Manley pleaded guilty to assaulting police with two cans of bear spray, and throwing an empty canister at officers. Manley then threw a metal rod at officers. Federal judge Tanya Chutkan told Manley at his sentencing hearing that, “there has to be an understanding that participating, taking up arms against law enforcement, taking up arms to basically try and overthrow the government, is going to be met with severe punishment.” Manley was sentenced to more than four years in prison.

Patrick Edward McCaughey III was convicted of using a police riot shield to “crush” Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges in a metal doorframe, leaving Hodges trapped, bleeding and crying for help from his fellow officers. “If I was there much longer being assaulted in such a way, I knew that it was very likely I wouldn’t be able to maintain my consciousness,” Hodges testified. “Your actions on January 6 were some of the most egregious crimes that were committed that day,” federal judge Trevor McFadden told McCaughey before sentencing him to more than seven years in prison.

Ryan Nichols pleaded guilty to pepper spraying police officers and urging rioters through a bullhorn to storm the building. “This is not a peaceful protest,” he yelled, according to prosecutors. “If you have a weapon, you need to get your weapon!” Later that night, Nichols recorded a video of himself calling for a second American Revolution and stating, “if you want to know where Ryan Nichols stands, Ryan Nichols stands for violence.” Nichols was sentenced to more than five years in prison.

Christopher Quaglin was convicted at trial of “viciously assaulting police officers for hours,” according to federal prosecutors. “On at least a dozen occasions, Quaglin stood face-to-face with officers as he screamed at, pushed with outstretched arms, punched, swatted, and

slapped officers; pushed bike racks into officers; and even choked one officer to the ground,” prosecutors stated. Quaglin was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Daniel Rodriguez pleaded guilty to using a stun gun and “plunging it” multiple times into a police officer Michael Fanone’s neck, in the words of prosecutors, leading Fanone to scream out in pain. “During those moments, I remember thinking that there was a very good chance that I would be torn apart or be shot to death with my own weapon,” Fanone testified to Congress. Rodriguez was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.

Peter Schwartz was convicted of stealing pepper spray from police officers, distributing the canisters to other rioters and “indiscriminately” spraying law enforcement, according to prosecutors. Court documents from the Justice Department described him as a “a welder by trade and a felon who has racked up numerous convictions for drugs, weapons, and violence over the last three decades.” The day after the riot, he allegedly posted on Facebook, “What happened yesterday was the opening of a war. I was there and whether people will acknowledge it or not we are now at war.” Schwartz was sentenced to more than 14 years in prison.

But, sure, their imprisonment constituted “a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people.”


*It wasn’t clear from the early news reports but the 14 convicts connected to the Oath Keepers and Proud boys were not pardoned; they merely had their sentences commuted. While they’re being released from prison, their felony convictions stand. For now at least.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Crime, Law and the Courts, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Professor of Security Studies. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Not the IT Dept. says:

    Not enough attention is being paid to how this sweeping pardon-a-palooza contradicted what JD Vance said earlier, which is that it wouldn’t apply to those convicted of using violence on January 6.

    Shows how little Trump listens to Vance right now and might indicate increased ignoring as the year goes on. Since I’m sure Vance is building relationships with GOP congresscritters he can trust and assembling an office staff (something we haven’t heard a word about, btw) and encouraging their research into the 25th Amendment.

    Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.

    3
  2. MarkedMan says:

    “But her emails”

    13
  3. Joe says:

    And by “strikingly muted” they meant “predictably muted.”

    8
  4. Modulo Myself says:

    I’m guessing most cops don’t care. Half of them probably think that the cops who got injured are faking it for the disability payments. And if you remove politics and the myth of law and order, who believes that you should get 14 years for spraying a few officers with pepper spray? Only the other guy deserves that sentence, not you.

    Trump can pardon these people and get away with it because he’s giving the ‘law and order’ people want they want, which is fewer rights for other people and the illusion of cashing in. He just pardoned the guy who founded Silk Road. Crime is legal. It’s okay to orchestrate a drug marketplace or a pump-and-dump scheme. The real enemies are wokeness and gender ideology, and here’s some crap about cartels and fentanyl.

    7
  5. just nutha says:

    I only read one brief article about what deputy veep Vance said, but it was clear to me that he was speaking only for himself. I’m sorry he let the rest of you down, but it would be naive of us to believe that he has either reliable knowledge of the mind of Trump or that his opinions on policy have any more weight than…

    …(what was it?)…

    …(oh yeah, I remember) a lukewarm bucket of spit.

    7
  6. Jc says:

    There are likely Police officers who fly the blue flag, voted for Trump and still support these pardons. How lost in hate would you have to be in order to reach that level of sadness?

    9
  7. Scott says:

    The media has pretty much been captured. A politician’s outrage can only be made loud if the captured media allows it.

    7
  8. ptfe says:

    Pardoning for the headlines. Tomorrow’s outrage will be equally absurdist. Trump wants to get “President Musk” off the front pages, so while he’s created the system to enable Musk to be a prime contributor to his slush fund, these pardons are an attempt to put Donald Trump back on top.

    Anyway, the shadow president/king broligarch persists, now further enabled by rebranding an existing government agency so he can be officially crowned Memeperor (or whatever title his drug-addled, socially barely pubescent brain can come up with). Expect more attempts to nudge him aside by the limp dictator signing the bills.

    4
  9. steve says:

    It’s still a cult (of personality). The cult leader can never be wrong. They will support and defend everything he does, even if it’s just refraining from criticism.

    Steve

    6
  10. charontwo says:

    @Not the IT Dept.:

    encouraging their research into the 25th Amendment.

    Which would show how easy it is for a President to get around it, as long as the President is not in a coma.

    25 Amendment is a non-starter, forget it.

    2
  11. gVOR10 says:

    @ptfe:

    Trump wants to get “President Musk” off the front pages

    Kevin Drum read the EO establishing DOGE. Section 4 sets out the function of DOGE.

    Sec. 4. Modernizing Federal Technology and Software to Maximize Efficiency and Productivity. (a) The USDS Administrator shall commence a Software Modernization Initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems. Among other things, the USDS Administrator shall work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.

    That’s it. Software modernization and interoperability. Nothing about spending, nothing about regulation, nothing about restructuring.

    Looks like it’s mostly giving Musk a shiny title and no path to real power. Trump’s an ignorant asshole, but he isn’t as dumb as he looks. No wonder Ramashatshisname decided to run for governor instead.

    2
  12. wr says:

    @Modulo Myself: ” He just pardoned the guy who founded Silk Road. ”

    Somehow when he was demanding the death penalty for drug dealers, he left out the part where he meant “unless it’s someone liked by people who give me money.”

    8
  13. becca says:

    @Modulo Myself: didn’t Ullrecht take out hits on three employees of his because they were witnesses for the prosecution? Not just a drug dealing sex trafficker, but a murderous one.

    7
  14. Matt Bernius says:

    Susan Collins (Maine) indicated she was unfamiliar with the pardons but would disagree with them if they were for violent offenders.

    Ongoing reminder in that Senator Collins was correct when she said Trump “learned his lesson.”

    The problem is that the particular lesson wasn’t the one she apparently thought it was.

    14
  15. Matt Bernius says:

    @gVOR10:

    Looks like it’s mostly giving Musk a shiny title and no path to real power.

    One major question is to what degree Musk will get access to classified information. Given that he’s now part of the Executive Branch, Trump handles his security clearance (much like Kushner before him).

    Given that Musk’s companies are involved in international work–in particular in China, there’s a LOT of power in unfettered access to classified information. Especially, if Musk is playing a longer game. That’s before we get to all the contracts with Musk’s various companies that fall under the prevue of the Executive Branch. He’s essentially able to work both sides of his US government contracts unless there are significant firewalls put in place and a willingness to enforce said firewalls.

    Frankly, unlike the Presidency, he doesn’t even need to divest in anything performatively.

    3
  16. Not the IT Dept. says:

    @charontwo:

    Actually, I won’t. If the VP wants it to happen, the VP has a great deal of leverage over enforcing the amendment. The assumption has always been that the VP wouldn’t go against the sitting President, but as we are in uncharted waters right now, I’m pretty sure all bets are off.

    2
  17. charontwo says:

    @Not the IT Dept.:

    Even if you get it past the Cabinet and 2/3 of both houses of Congress, the President can nullify it with a simple letter saying “I am fine, go fuck yourselves.” That does not strike me as a very effective possibility.

    ETA: Impeachment is a much easier way to get rid of a President who does not want to go.

    2
  18. Joe says:

    @gVOR10:

    (a) The USDS Administrator shall commence a Software Modernization Initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems.

    This idea is a stroke of genius. How have we never thought of this before? That’s why we need geniuses like Trump and Musk so we can do the heretofore unthinkable!

    6
  19. BTW, well done:

    A couple of our commentators yesterday apparently weren’t watching the news on January 6, 2020. Thankfully, NPR has a summary

    9
  20. Fortune says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    And if you remove politics and the myth of law and order, who believes that you should get 14 years for spraying a few officers with pepper spray?

    What’s the average sentence for pepper spraying a police officer? Are most even arrested or charged?

    1
  21. Fortune says:

    @charontwo:

    ETA: Impeachment is a much easier way to get rid of a President who does not want to go.

    Zero wins, four losses. The only thing that’s worked is supporting the president for four years, voting for him again in the primaries, and hoping his mental decline is so obvious in his debate that he’ll be publicly shamed off the ticket.

    3
  22. wr says:

    @Fortune: “What’s the average sentence for pepper spraying a police officer?”

    In New York, it’s up to seven years.

    By the way, that took me about two seconds to find on Google, which means that you could have done the same thing if you actually cared about answers instead of trying to score weird and stupid points.

    If you’ve got something to say, say it.

    14
  23. Fortune says:

    @wr: Thanks for telling me what the “average’ is “up to”. You sound like a furniture salesman. I tried looking up what the average legal response is to pepper spraying an officer and didn’t find it either just like you.

  24. ptfe says:

    @Fortune: I think the average legal response to pepper spraying a cop is to be murdered on the spot by his partner.

    11
  25. Erik says:

    @Matt Bernius: as always, I wonder why the journalist asking questions that get answers like this from politicians don’t follow up by asking “isn’t it your job to know about events like this?”

    4
  26. Erik says:

    @Fortune: this line of discussion is a red herring. It is maybe arguable that some of the low level offenders got stiffer than usual sentences (although I tend to agree with @ptfe: about this) but, first, you are asking about an average sentence, so if they got longer than average and other people got shorter than average that does not mean the stiffer sentences were wrong, else the sentence would not allow a range, it would just be a fixed sentence. Also, I will note that the prosecutors made cases for longer sentences that they didn’t get, so seems like the system of independent judiciary who do have access to the info you are asking for made an informed independent decision.

    But, as I said, this is a red herring. Are there any people pardoned or commuted for their role in J6 that you think should have stayed in prison?

    6
  27. inhumans99 says:

    @charontwo:

    The moment President Trump (I am going to put President in front of his name, not a fan of giving him a vulgar nickname, or not respecting the title of President of the United States, but it does not mean we are engaged or anything…thank you Corporal Hicks from Aliens) shows public signs of dementia, or anything showing a noticeable decline in his mental capacity he will be impeached faster than a New York Minute.

    Please note that I emphasized the word public, this has to be a decline that is so noticeable that even if you close your eyes, or to quote some of our fellow GOP Senators, did not see or hear the video, you will still be blinded by the light, so to speak.

    3
  28. DK says:

    Typo for correction: Trump’s Reichstag-like terror attack on Congress took place on Jan 6, 2021.

    @Modulo Myself:

    And if you remove politics and the myth of law and order, who believes that you should get 14 years for spraying a few officers with pepper spray?

    If you remove whiteness, who believes you should only serve 1-3 years for pepper spraying officers while in a mob violently storming the Capitol to kill politicians and stage a coup to nullify a US election?

    What sentence would a bunch of “rioters” named Hussein and Mohammed have gotten in such a scenario? Assuming they wouldn’t have been shot dead on the spot, rightly so?

    6
  29. wr says:

    @Fortune: “Thanks for telling me what the “average’ is “up to”. You sound like a furniture salesman. ”

    Sorry for answering your question and pointing out your moronic attempts at gamesmanship.

    As for furniture salesman — do you find when you go into a furniture store all the employees point and laugh, too?

    4
  30. wr says:

    @DK: “Assuming they wouldn’t have been shot dead on the spot, rightly so?”

    I believe the appropriate expression here is “Assuming facts not in evidence.”

    3
  31. just nutha says:

    @inhumans99:

    Please note that I emphasized the word public, this has to be a decline that is so noticeable that even if you close your eyes, or to quote some of our fellow GOP Senators, did not see or hear the video, you will still be blinded by the light, so to speak. [emphasis added]

    Thus making an impossible standard to achieve. A motivated actor will call war peace, freedom slavery, love hate, or someone ranting incoherently perfectly reasonable. As it was in 2 impeachment hearings, it is now, and shall be forever (though I hope not).

    3
  32. charontwo says:

    @inhumans99:

    Please note that I emphasized the word public, this has to be a decline that is so noticeable that even if you close your eyes, or to quote some of our fellow GOP Senators, did not see or hear the video, you will still be blinded by the light, so to speak.

    It is already clear to anyone who wants to see, most people do not.

    Here is Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer, his newsletter:

    Trump’s Day One was a dangerous display of rapid mental decline

    After long recap of the first day speeches etc.:

    … the 47th president of the United States had finished his weirdly personal and political inaugural address and moved downstairs to the Capitol’s Emancipation Hall for the the B-list dignitaries who weren’t on the Musk-scented VIP guest list for the Rotunda ceremony. And he was already unraveling.

    The late Gov. Mario Cuomo famously said that “you campaign in poetry… [and] govern in prose,” but Trump was speaking in gibberish, and it was barely 1 p.m. He took his time checking off his list of grievances and grudges that his aides successfully kept out of his main speech, like calling his critic the ex-Rep. Liz Cheney “a crying lunatic.” But the words — the ones that weren’t slurred — came out in a singsong monotone. And then he spotted Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in the audience, and went off on what seemed like an endless riff on border-wall design and technology.

    “We had a fence structure that they worked on — we worked on, the governor worked on it with me — and I didn’t love it, to be honest. I wanted a nice, pre-cast concrete, like 40, 50 feet high. It could have been a ‘T’ shape or a ‘Y’ shape. I love construction…” This kind of talk went on for four minutes and 45 seconds, with riffs on steel rebar and anti-climb panels and with Vice President JD Vance standing behind him with a pained, constipated expression, occasionally forcing a laugh. Vance looked like a modern-day Ed McMahon as sidekick to a Carnac the Magnificent who’s rapidly losing his powers of cognition, let alone precognition.

    The coming days — also likely to include the launch of a national mass deportation program, probably in Chicago — will show how consequential this January blizzard of Oval Office paperwork truly is. For now, though, my biggest takeaway from a day that some have anticipated and many have dreaded for the last four years is seeing how rapidly the oldest new president in America is declining right in front of us.

    The endless monologue about border-wall building materials that came one hour into a term that has 35,040 more hours to go ought to be a warning, wrapped as it was in paranoid lies about the House Jan. 6 Committee and angry threats of retribution against his perceived enemies like Cheney and retired Gen. Mark Milley.

    We’ve just flipped the car keys of this 248-year-old republic to a grandpa who starts his four-year road trip already in a serious state of mental decline, with all the guardrails of yesteryear stripped away by a corrupt Supreme Court, a feckless and increasingly useless Democratic Party, and a bended-knee elite media. And did I mention that there’s a nuclear bomb in the trunk? Fasten your seatbelts, America.

    I caught a brief bit of his speech, his affect is noticeably lethargic and weird. There is visibly something wrong if you care to notice.

    3
  33. Moosebreath says:

    “Muted Outrage Over Trump Pardon Outrage
    Only a handful of Republican Senators have objected. Mildly.”

    To bring up an argument from the last few days, if Biden hadn’t pardoned Dr. Fauci, Gen. Milley, Liz Cheney, etc., then when (not if) the Trump Administration brought criminal charges against them, what makes you believe the Republican Senators would have done anything more?

    ETA: I know James was in favor of those pardons. I am directing the question to those who opposed them.

    4
  34. steve says:

    We should fill out the story on the pepper spray guy. First, he had about 40 prior convictions, several of them for assault. Next, he was out on probation at the time he assaulted police. Next, he stole the pepper spray he used. Next, he didnt just pepper spray the police in front of him, he actually chased down police to spray them when they tried to run away. Finally, he distributed some of the stolen pepper spray to others in the crowd to use. When people didnt know how to use the spray he taught them how to do it. He also threw a chair at police.

    So pepper spraying police is pretty rare. I couldn’t find any cases in PA, however it would be considered aggravated assault which gets you a minimum of 2 years and a max of 20 years. You generally get longer sentences if you commit a crime while on probation and longer if it’s assault on police and longer if you assault more than one person. So, there are many reasons you would expect Schwartz to have gotten a longer sentence. For comparison, one of the guys who was also pepper spraying police but was not on probation or as aggressive in chasing police or teaching others got sentence of 4 years for using pepper spray on the police.

    https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2023/may/06/capitol-rioter-49-gets-prison-term-of-14-years/

    4
  35. @inhumans99:

    shows public signs of dementia, or anything showing a noticeable decline in his mental capacity

    I am not trying to be funny and this is a real question: how would we be able to tell?

    (And I also think that rather than impeachment or 25th Amendmenting him, his folks would just manage him and continue to govern, a la late term Reagan).

    7
  36. @wr: @Erik: @ptfe: I think that the really important lesson here is that Fortune is in no way a Trump apologists or supporter but just so happen to only ever comment in an apologetic or supportive manner.

    ’tis a subtle distinction, I know.

    7
  37. @steve: Weird how context and information can help one better understand a situation.

    Wild!

    3
  38. Daryl says:
  39. Fortune says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I direct you to my exchange with “Just nutha ignint cracker” on the Trump and the Deep State at State article. I said there I don’t expect people to study up on my positions, but since you keep writing about mine, maybe you should.

  40. charontwo says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    I am not trying to be funny and this is a real question: how would we be able to tell?

    Dementia is normally diagnosed by observation of behavior. For ordinary run of the mill people, this can include talking to relatives. As the disease progresses, symptoms become more noticeable.

    Some dementias affect muscle control, gait, stance etc. The end stage of frontotemporal dementia is bedridden, unable to speak, unable to swallow so on a feeding tube.

    Trump is surrounded by people who will work hard to hide any health issues, so he would have to get pretty far along before many people are ready to acknowledge there just might be a problem.

    1
  41. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @ptfe: These are the only type of Bananas these species of monkey can digest. Makes em shit their fur–but they damn sure are tasty!

    2
  42. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Fortune: Whats to study? Your position is always nose to sack with ankles firmly gripped. It’s the only way(I’m told) to get the full $Trump love experience

    5
  43. steve says:

    Dr Taylor- It really wasn’t hard to find that info. When you are ideologically driven you make assumptions, which often are not true. If you are really interested in an issue its usually pretty easy to find our more info on most topics on the internet somewhere, but again, if you are just trying to score points, or troll, or whatever you wont do that.

    Steve

    2
  44. becca says:

    There are a number of violent J6 insurrectionists turned in by their families. If there is a vile act of retribution by one of these criminals, look for some pretzel logic victim blaming from the usual jerks.

    5
  45. Fortune says:

    @Jim Brown 32: Oh I get it now. I used to wonder why conservative commenters would comment and not bother replying to the attacks against them (hardly ever against their ideas). I still think a person should stand up to bullies but you’re too stupid to reply to. Maybe mock for being stupid, but your comments mock your intelligence just fine.

  46. wr says:

    @Fortune: Ah, finally we get to the core of Fortune’s arguments:

    “Waaah! Waaah! Waaah!”

    7
  47. Fortune says:

    @wr: Look over Jim Brown 32’s comments and tell me how would you respond.

  48. Joe says:

    @charontwo: Having watched this process up close and personal, a wife can cover for her declining husband for a good while by cuing appropriate behaviors and responses, but eventually the husband will be quite obviously looking for the cues instead of responding directly to those around him. A president can have a lot of people around to take cues from, but it would become pretty obvious if Trump starts following cues from anybody. That is not how he rolls.

    1
  49. Joe says:

    @charontwo: Having watched this process up close and personal, a wife can cover for her declining husband for a good while by cuing appropriate behaviors and responses, but eventually the husband will be quite obviously looking for the cues instead of responding directly to those around him. A president can have a lot of people around to take cues from, but it would become pretty obvious if Trump starts following cues from anybody. That is not how he rolls.

  50. Matt Bernius says:

    @Fortune:

    I direct you to my exchange with “Just nutha ignint cracker” on the Trump and the Deep State at State article. I said there I don’t expect people to study up on my positions, but since you keep writing about mine, maybe you should.

    For convenience sake, here’s what you wrote there:

    I didn’t say that here but I’ve said it before. Trump is a bad person with some bad ideas, and even good presidents with good policy ideas can do harm. I’m sure I’ve criticized his tariffs, and I’m worried about Ukraine. I don’t expect people to study up on my positions though. What’s your question?

    Honestly, the only thing from that which I’ve seen you specifically say in the past is “Trump is a bad person”–you definitely posted that within the last few weeks. It was on the “Imagine at the Carter Funeral” post:

    @DK: I hate to answer you seriously, particularly on a whataboutist digression but Trump’s a bad person. He’s not a fascist but a liar, felon, probably a rapist.

    Soruce: https://outsidethebeltway.com/check-yourself-before-you-wreck-yourself-carter-funeral-edition/

    You’ve also said that:

    I’m as disappointed by Trump’s 2024 nomination as you were by Biden’s 2020, but you and I are both in the minority.

    Source: https://outsidethebeltway.com/january-6-plus-four/

    And at the same time, after a bunch of googling, I couldn’t for the life of me find you sharing your position on Ukraine or Tariffs. I checked the times I and others have written about those topics here and you didn’t appear to comment on any of those threads. Perhaps it’s because you agreed with what we were writing and therefore didn’t see any reason to contribute.

    I can pull lots of threads where you dove into defending a lot of Trump’s decisions and nominations (you spent time, for example, arguing that Tulsi Gabbard was qualified to be Director of DNI). I have yet to find a single case of you critizing any of them.

    Perhaps if you can point us to specific examples, that would be helpful. Otherwise it really appears that you haven’t shared enough about your actual affirmative positions (beyond we should stop being mean to Trump and Democrats bad) that we could have legit conversations about your positions.

    6
  51. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Fortune: You mad bro? Lolz

    3
  52. Fortune says:

    @Jim Brown 32: No, why would I be. I just want to talk about issues and you’ve made yourself forgettable. Have I ever replied to you before? I just really didn’t realize what motivates conservative commenters to ignore the weirdos before.

  53. dazedandconfused says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    I believe the context of those 1/6 people were responding to the directions of a President of the United States is being missed or ignored. The President of the United States declared a coup was in progress and they believed it. A wee bit different than just some guy attacking a cop. We The People have pardoned the guy who organized it, and with that guy making these pardons a campaign promise.

    Should Lincoln have imprisoned the Confederate troops after the war and let Jeff Davis skate because Jeff never picked up a weapon? As much as I despise Trump, my sense of outrage at injustice just can’t seem to get out of first gear in on this one. It’s a combination of watching so many otherwise decent people fall hook line and sinker for the FOX news BS and the Pogo thing, I guess.

    2
  54. DK says:

    The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024.

    Trump sent conservative creeps to attack Congress on Jan 6, where they chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” and traumatized Capitol Police physically and mentally, resulting in officer injury and death.

    MAGA Republicans then praised, lionized, and fundraised for these terrorists — with Epstein-bestie rapist Trump promising multiple times to pardon them.

    Knowing this, Fraternal Order of Police morons chose to endorse Trump anyway. Now they are shocked and upset Trump did exactly what they supported.

    The fascism-enabling, pedo-voting conservatives of America are stupid: gullible marks for con artists, easily-goaded into shooting themselves in the face Because Trans Woke DEI migrant CRT.

    As Trump and his greedy oligarchs continue to show their incompetence and amorality, bet on the science-denying Philistihes of the modern right remaining too unethical, unintelligent, and arrogant to admit they were and are wrong.

    5
  55. DK says:

    @dazedandconfused:

    Should Lincoln have imprisoned the Confederate troops after the war and let Jeff Davis skate because Jeff never picked up a weapon?

    All of the Confederate traitors from Davis and Lee on down should have been punished: their property confiscated as restitution including distribuion to former slaves — with officers and officials banished/deported or summarily executed. Had that happened, some the problems seen today in contemporary America would not exist.

    Of the major Union figures, seems only Sherman and Sumner had the right idea: burn the whole thing down.

    5
  56. @steve: I was agreeing with your point.

    I was agreeing that the information is easy to find and therefore provides information that others in the thread seem unwilling to look up.

    Or am I misunderstanding?

    1
  57. dazedandconfused says:

    @DK:

    You are wrong about Sherman, anyway. See the terms he granted in the agreement with Johnson. Total amnesty.

  58. Thomm says:

    @Fortune: I would have ignored it rather than respond like a hit dog hollering, but that is just me.

    6
  59. Thomm says:

    @Jim Brown 32: oh…he is big mad.

    1
  60. Fortune says:

    @Thomm: You’d ignore it because it’s not worth your time, but you’d also congratulate the person who wrote it.

  61. Erik says:

    @Fortune: I see that you are concerned about being misunderstood, and perhaps you think I should already be aware of your position on all of the J6 pardons/commutations so maybe you won’t reply to this comment either, but I have not seen a reply to me @Erik: regarding if there are any J6 pardons or commutations that you disagree with.

    1
  62. al Ameda says:

    Frankly, I expected nothing but a ‘muted response’ from so-called respected Republican senators and representatives.

    They’re all afraid that Daddy Trump will smack them down if they express anything more than a desultory Susan Collins-esque ‘I’m concerned,’ but not a ‘I’m VERY concerned’ mind you, that’s an insult to Daddy.

    6
  63. wr says:

    @Fortune: “Look over Jim Brown 32’s comments and tell me how would you respond.”

    I would never have to respond to this kind of comment, because I wouldn’t have spent weeks posting trolly just-the-tip-Trump bullshit and just basically being a pain in the ass.

    Okay, maybe that last part. But as they say, a dog knows the difference between a kick and a trip, and someone like JB knows the difference between someone annoying him in an argument and a full-on troll, even one who pretends not to be.

  64. wr says:

    @Fortune: “I just want to talk about issues and you’ve made yourself forgettable.”

    Dude, maybe learn a lesson or two from JB. There are times I think his posts are valuable and there are times he makes me crazy. But the one thing he never is is forgettable.

    Unlike some trolls who are completely interchangeable with our other trolls.

    2
  65. gVOR10 says:

    I got a chuckle out of the NYT headline quoted in the OP, “The GOP’s stunning response to Trump pardoning those who assaulted police”. “Stunning” apparently means totally expected and barely perceptible.

    4
  66. Fortune says:

    @Erik: I don’t know. I haven’t followed the prosecutions. The right says people have been persecuted by the government and over-charged, but I’m not going to trust them on it. The left says they’re on the side of the police over the rioters for the first time in my lifetime and I’m not going to believe them either. The only strong opinion I have is there shouldn’t be prosecutions still in the process after four years. I did see the initial reporting was wrong about pardons and commutations though, so I’m more skeptical of the left so far.

  67. steve says:

    Dr Taylor- You did not misunderstand, just me reminding people that the trolls dont have much credibility when they make claims that one can easily find with minimal effort evidence that show they are being a bit disingenuous.

    Steve

    5
  68. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Jim Brown 32: @Fortune: And THAT—ladies and gentlemen—is how @$trump operates. Everyone—and I do mean everyone has landmines in their psyche that you only have to poke with the right pictures/insinuations and KABOOM. I assumed Fortune is a white guy and a conservative so there are about 5-7 attack angles that are good bets to make the veins in their temples pulsate. Conversely, If I met him in the street—there are a handful of things JB 32 would say that would lead him to believe that ole JB is one of few n1&&ers that “gets it”.

    Fortune—I’m sorry I was a dick to you (And not even an orange dick—like the dicks you like). But I’m angry that a reality show star is doing reality show things to a pretty darn good country. I’m angry that he knows what he’s doing and uses that knowledge to trick people (like you) into looting the country for himself and a handful of others like him.

    So I decided to have some fun at your expense—so my friends here (as well as I) could enjoy your harumphing and protestations. They were orange cream (my favorite). In the process you learned what ‘motivates conservative to ignore weirdos’—and I learned how addicting the tears and outrage of people you disagree with are (because it was sooo fun). Let’s call it a win win and I’ll go back to ignoring you (and you I)

    3
  69. Fortune says:

    @Jim Brown 32: If you hurl abuse at someone he might reply. Remarkable conclusion.

    1
  70. Matt Bernius says:

    @Fortune:

    The only strong opinion I have is there shouldn’t be prosecutions still in the process after four years.

    On what basis are you forming that strong opinion?

    And are you looking at the average time from charging to resolution for similar crimes?

    Or the case load for a relatively small Federal Criminal court?

    Or defendants exercising their right to a trial and the realities about how that delays the process?

    Or is it just “that seems way too long to me?

    The reason I ask is if you think things are moving slowly here then definitely don’t look into how long things take when it comes to lower profile trials in your nearest large county.

    5
  71. Paul L. says:

    @Matt Bernius:
    See Steyn v. Mann. Of course, any case where the government or law enforcement caste is being sued under S1983 is stonewalled by the courts.

    1
  72. Jax says:

    @Fortune: Why are you here? Why do you keep coming here? Nobody “requires” you to be here, you’re not going to change any of our minds, just like we’re not going to change yours.

    You like conflict? Being insulted and now it’s personal? This is a blog. It’s been going since the early 2000’s, and most of us commenters have been here since at least 2008. You’re kinda shitting in the litterbox, dude, and not even attempting to put some litter over it.

    We enjoy learning from the other side (that’s why we came here), but you’re not providing anything like learning. It’s just more tired talking points from a dementia-ridden Trump that you are determined to talk up, without recognizing your own hypocrisy.

    I hope his policies affect you good and hard.

    3
  73. Eusebio says:

    The more-than 1,500 pardoned criminals are going to be a hell of an albatross around trump’s neck for the next four years. They are a special group of people with a propensity for wrongdoing—they won’t be able to just turn off the criming. There will be crimes, lots of crimes, and there will be victims. We can’t stop that. But, since arrest records are relatively easy to find, I expect we’ll see a steady stream of “pardoned Jan 6 defendant arrested for…” stories.
    There will be some J6 criminals who slip under the radar, though—the couple hundred or so who’ve been identified but not yet arrested due to the priorities and pace of investigations, and maybe even the roughly 300 whose cases are pending.

    4
  74. Erik says:

    @Fortune: I appreciate the engagement, and respect that you recognize that you don’t have enough information to have an informed opinion and are comfortable saying “I don’t know.” There are an awful lot of people who wouldn’t be willing to do that, and it reflects great credit upon you. Regretfully, I’m going to have to drop the conversation here because I’m going to be busy for the next 36 hours or so, but I hope that you think about some of the questions that @Matt Bernius: brings up; they are similar to the ones I’d pose if I could stick around to have the conversation.

    2
  75. DK says:

    @Jax:

    Why are you here? Why do you keep coming here?

    Because anti-Trumpers are by-and-large decent, intelligent, ethical, patriotic, fun, likeable people. Unlike the derelicts, morons, Nazis, jerks, losers, loons, and deplorables who populate the comments sections of conservative websites and blogs.

    You know, the same reasons why the leaders of the right mostly raise their kids in blue cities, counties, and/or states.

    1
  76. mattbernius says:

    @Paul L.:

    See Steyn v. Mann. Of course, any case where the government or law enforcement caste is being sued under S1983 is stonewalled by the courts.

    For the last time Paul repeat it with me that Civil proceedings are fundamentally different than criminal proceedings and different trials progress at different times.

    Again facts matter.

    This is up there with “dicta is not legally binding” and “For the next four years Donald Trump is the defacto leader of the jack booted Federal thugs you hate and therefore responsible for the policies they follow” as stubborn facts you cannot seem to accept (let alone use to moderate your opinions).

    4
  77. Matt Bernius says:

    @Eusebio:

    The more-than 1,500 pardoned criminals are going to be a hell of an albatross around trump’s neck for the next four years. They are a special group of people with a propensity for wrongdoing—they won’t be able to just turn off the criming.

    Yes and no. The reality is that as with most people convicted of crimes (including violent ones) the vast majority of these people will keep their heads down and we probably won’t hear from them again. That’s fine and we should let them (and other previously convicted folks) move on with their lives.

    However, there will definitely be a subset that will get in trouble with the law again. That might be because of temperament or underlying mental and emotional health issues. As @steve: pointed out above, some of those folks had records going into January 6th. We also have the sad recent example of the recent sad case of the killing of the Pizzagate gunman as proof of this.

    Being extraordinarily conservative and assuming we’re talking about 1% of that population, that’s still 15 people. Given the amount of hay that has been made about undocumented folks committing crimes, I think it’s fair to apply the same negative reactions to that subset of a subset.

    3
  78. Matt Bernius says:

    @Fortune:

    The right says people have been persecuted by the government and over-charged, but I’m not going to trust them on it. The left says they’re on the side of the police over the rioters for the first time in my lifetime and I’m not going to believe them either.

    Genuine question to better understand your positions Fortune: do you see this as a balanced/both-sides formulation?

    1
  79. Fortune says:

    @Jax:

    Why are you here?

    Partly “someone is wrong on the internet”. Partly I’d never want to back down from someone like DK. Partly I can’t tell if Steven L. Taylor used to be rational and went off the deep end, or he’s always been full of himself. I’m still interested in the heterodox commenters but they don’t comment much.

    I don’t get much out of the site and I keep thinking of leaving, but it’s only a few minutes per day.

  80. @steve:

    just me reminding people that the trolls dont have much credibility when they make claims that one can easily find with minimal effort evidence that show they are being a bit disingenuous.

    Agreed!

    In looking back I thought that the “you”s in the comment were directed at me, rather than generally (so was a bit confused).

  81. @Eusebio:

    The more-than 1,500 pardoned criminals are going to be a hell of an albatross around trump’s neck for the next four years.

    I would love to think so.

    But encouraging and supporting the insurrection (including calling it a “day of love” a few months ago) didn’t matter enough. Why should this?

    1
  82. Matt Bernius says:

    @Fortune:

    Partly “someone is wrong on the internet”. Partly I’d never want to back down from someone like DK.

    Honestly, I want to share that I can definitely fall into this trap.

    I also try to make sure to apply those same rules to myself and admit when I’m wrong. It’s scary to practice at first and yet really freeing (because intellectual insecurity leading to always having to be right/win sucks).

    Not everything is a trap and having a zero-sum game to online discussions is ultimately self-defeating if your goal is anything other than just wanting to be right.

    2
  83. Eusebio says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    Yes and no.

    Completely agree with this with respect to my assertion that J6 criminals will keep on criming. The vast majority of the 1,500 are unlikely to be arrested again, but statistically speaking, a bunch of them almost certainly will because of two things: 1,500 is a big number, and these people have already demonstrated poor judgment. And the Pizzagate gunman example occurred to me as well.