Are preemptive pardons the opposite of preemptive convictions? Sometimes, yes, because they can be unfair as well.
After Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, which he said he would not do, Biden (or more accurately, his handlers) has issued a “preemptive pardon” for certain former government officials and administration allies. I understand that it is being considered. That includes Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former bureaucrat responsible for the highly destructive COVID-19 policy. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former Rep. Liz Cheney participated in the January 6 committee prank in Congress.
Of course, the deep state justifies this by claiming that President Trump wants to persecute his political opponents. Here's what they don't say:
Pardoning allies (partners in crime?) is a good way to keep them from getting involved with you.
Additionally, one observer wrote in the title, “Preemptive pardons once again prove Democrats' accusations are confessions.”
“Please forgive me for destroying the Republic.”
Newsweek Deputy Opinion Editor Batia Unger-Sargon wrote late last week:
The very idea of a preemptive pardon is shocking, and exactly the kind of norm-busting that Democrats want to accuse President Trump of. Let's consider what a preemptive pardon means. Not only is this a tacit admission that Democrats believe Fauci or Schiff committed a crime, meaning that if they go looking, they'll find something, but they're not going to go there looking. It's also a tacit admission that I don't have one, and that I have no intention of ever going looking for one. In other words, if Biden were to issue these blanket pardons, he would be ratifying an idea so aptly put forth by Peru's General Oscar Benavidez. To my enemies it is the law. ”
This is a complete attack on the rule of law, and an admission that Democrats believe that justice is not only political, but should be politicized. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent for someone who is constantly making noise about the dangers President Trump poses to our democracy. We have probably reached the stage of “abolishing the rule of law'' to protect democracy!
Every accusation from the Democratic Party is a confession.
perspective
To be fair, as radio station WBUR pointed out last month (in a very biased article), preemptive pardons are not unprecedented. But consider some of the examples cited by the media. These include President Gerald Ford's pardon of former President Richard Nixon, President Jimmy Carter's 1977 pardon for all Vietnam War-era draft evaders, and President Trump's pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio. These cases are of a different nature than those being considered by the Biden administration.
Regardless of whether Ford should have pardoned Nixon, he probably did so to heal a divided nation, he explained. So did Mr. Carter, who said, “I want to heal the wounds within Vietnam.'' Arpaio had already been convicted of contempt and was quite old when President Trump pardoned him. (It was a total forgiveness.) But there is a big difference.
If these pardons had not been granted, none of these presidents or their top brass would have been involved in any crimes. In fact, the pardons of Ford and Carter may have had a negative impact on their ultimately unsuccessful re-election efforts.
This is simply not the case with Biden's planned pardon. As The New American reported, Fauci continued to lie and was complicit in designing destructive coronavirus policies. Other officials also weighed in. And who knows how deep that rabbit hole is?
(Mr. Fauci knows.)
Jan. 6 The committee's misconduct could be even worse. There are also troubling charges that the committee destroyed a trove of evidence days before Republicans took control of the House in 2023. It's also inconceivable that people like Schiff and Cheney weren't working with the White House in some way. What exactly are they hiding and how far has the corruption gone? We may never know exactly whether a pardon will be granted.
That's the whole idea too.
projection
But therein lies the justification for amnesty advocates. Unger-Sargon also wrote:
They say Trump's appointees are bent on revenge. It's the Republicans who plan to weaponize the Justice Department and FBI against Trump's political opponents — just as Democrats plan to weaponize the Justice Department and the courts against Trump's political opponents in an effort to imprison Donald Trump in an obviously politically motivated witch hunt. As if they didn't send them all over the country. It's as if the FBI wasn't involved in covering up the Hunter Biden laptop incident in order for Biden to win in 2020. As if the intelligence community didn't routinely collude with President Trump's political opponents to undermine him at every opportunity during his time in office. And ever since.
Unger-Sargon points out that in fact, Trump never used legal action against his political opponents while in office. The aforementioned WBUR reported that President Trump said things like, “The Department of Justice and the prosecutors are going to be indicted, they're the bad guys.'' But shouldn't “bad” public officials be prosecuted? Or does being left-wing and connected mean you never have to say “sorry”?
Unger-Sargon said the message would be the latter if a preemptive pardon were issued. This may be an indication that pseudo-elite Democrats believe that no crime is serious enough to prosecute fellow travelers.
A nation ruled by law, or humans?
Related to this, Unger-Sargon has a question to ask everyone, including Democrats, who support the amnesty plan.
Don't Americans have the right to hold those in power accountable?
Shouldn't we all want to know when we've been lied to, and about what?
Or is this pardon another reminder that this is a post-legal America, a place where the law is for the little people and those who oppose the establishment?
One more thing: Unger-Sargon notes how the intelligence community routinely colluded with Trump's political opponents. Mind you, this was also predicted by liberal Democrats.
Just before President Trump took office in 2017, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York issued an ominous warning. Referring to President Trump's close ties to the intelligence community, he said:
I'm telling you, you're going up against intelligence agencies. They have six ways to fight back against you starting Sunday.
Well, let's think about it. Schumer had said that elected leaders, even the most powerful people in the world, should not mix with the rulers of the intelligence community. Does this frightening reality reflect a government of the people, for the people?
In reality, this reflects an undemocratic deep state swamp that most Americans would like to see drained.
And this draining of the swamp is exactly the kind of thing that preemptive amnesty can prevent.
