Let’s think first about the Biden pardons; after that, the Trump pardons.
I understand, if I don’t necessarily agree with, President Biden’s pardons of his son, Hunter; the January 6 Committee; and other Biden family members.
When first asked, Biden shouldn’t have flatly denied any intent to pardon Hunter; that makes Biden a liar. Biden should instead have said, before Hunter was convicted, that the elder Biden would reserve judgment on pardoning Hunter to see how the process played out. After Hunter was convicted, the president should have said, basically, “I love my son. He’s not dangerous or a threat to national security. I’m the president. I’m pardoning Hunter. I know that you may criticize me for this, but that’s the way it is.”
That wouldn’t have made the pardon any more correct, but I think Americans generally would have understood the sentiment.
I also understand, if I don’t necessarily agree with, the pardons of the January 6 Committee and the other Biden family members. None of these people had been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes. But all of these people had been personally threatened by Trump and folks associated with Trump.
It’s a bit unusual (though not unprecedented; think of Jimmy Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War draft dodgers) to pardon people who have not been convicted of anything. It’s also a dangerous precedent to have presidents start pardoning their family members; I wouldn’t like pardoning all the relatives to become routine at the end of every president’s term. But I understand why Biden decided to do this. If Trump’s going to threaten folks who have not been indicted or charged, then Biden’s going to protect those people.
(I’m sure that I’ll hear from some Trump loyalists that the “Biden crime family” is all guilty as sin. That’s why I’ve phrased the previous paragraphs carefully: Other than Hunter, none of Biden’s relatives have been charged with, or convicted of, anything. That’s indisputable.)
Let’s think now about Trump’s January 6 pardons. Again, I’m certain to hear from Trump loyalists that all the January 6 rioters were members of antifa, FBI informants, or tourists simply visiting the Capitol Building. But remember what Republicans — Republicans — said about January 6 immediately after the event. The Atlantic recently had an article collecting those contemporaneous Republican reactions. We all know that Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Kevin McCarthy blamed Trump on, or just after, January 6, 2021. But I’m not sure I knew that Elise Stefanik, soon to be Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, said, “The perpetrators of this un-American violence and destruction must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” Doug Burgum, soon to be Trump’s Secretary of the Interior, said, “The violence happening at our nation’s capital is reprehensible and does not represent American values, and needs to stop immediately.” In fact, I’d forgotten completely that Trump himself said shortly after January 6 that “those who broke the law, you will pay,” and Trump later vowed that “those who engaged in the attacks last week will be brought to justice.”
I guess Americans really do have the memory of a goldfish. But my argument starts from the premise that there was violence on January 6 and folks who engaged in that violence were appropriately tried and sentenced.
What’s the excuse for Trump having given blanket pardons or commutations to people involved in the January 6 riot?
That the rioters didn’t do anything wrong? That’s what Trump’s saying now, but it’s simply not true. And anyone who watched TV on January 6, or listened to Republicans at the time, knows that Trump and his supporters are now lying.
Perhaps it’s OK for Trump to pardon the January 6 rioters because Biden issued some pardons?
No. Biden’s pardons were only marginally, if at all, misguided. Biden didn’t release dangerous convicts. Trump, in contrast, gave wholesale pardons and commutations to nearly 1,600 people who had been charged, convicted, and sentenced.
None of the folks convicted in the January 6 riots had committed violent crimes?
According to Lawfare, these are the statistics:
Of the total 1,583 arrested, according to the department’s figures, 608 — or 38 percent — were charged with either assaulting or impeding federal police officers. Of those that assaulted officers, 174 were charged with an enhanced version of the crime for using deadly or dangerous weapons or for inflicting bodily harm on the officer.
Some folks were convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting to keep President Trump in power and amassing weapons for that purpose. Sentences ranged up to 22 years. That ain’t beanbag.
Maybe folks sentenced to prison for their conduct on January 6 had already suffered enough?
Not in the eyes of the judges, and sentencing guidelines, which said that some of these criminals should have spent much, much longer in prison than they did.
Maybe the Black Lives Matter protestors weren’t prosecuted, so the January 6 protestors shouldn’t have been prosecuted either?
Be serious. First, anyone who destroyed property or injured people in any protest should be prosecuted. Black Lives Matter, January 6 rioters, whoever. Get real.
Second, at least some Black Lives Matter protestors were prosecuted. For example, prosecutors brought charges including arson, assault, and felony assault for the riot in Portland, Oregon.
Moreover, neither you nor I know exactly what happened in Portland (or, for that matter, at the Capitol Building). We don’t know precisely how serious the violence was. We don’t know who did what to whom. We don’t know what prosecutions would have faced evidentiary problems at trial — although it’s likely that there were more security cameras, broadcast television cameras, and personal iPhone cameras at the Capitol than in Portland, which probably aided the prosecutions of those who invaded the Capitol.
Maybe the January 6 rioters should escape punishment because you’ve heard stories about some guy in Portland or Minneapolis who should have been prosecuted and wasn’t?
You have no clue if the story you heard was true. Even if it were true, what does the story tell us? People routinely argue that “There was a blizzard yesterday, so climate change is a hoax,” or “I heard about one time when a good guy with a gun caught an escaping criminal, so there’s no need for gun control.” If you think that these sorts of anecdotes constitute argumentation, you need a lesson in logic.
Lastly, think of the timing of the pardons. Biden issued pardons as he left office, which is the usual way of doing these things. The president skulks out of office, no longer having to face the electorate, and he does some crappy stuff as he leaves. (Ask Bill Clinton about Marc Rich.) Those who were pardoned feel lucky, but they do not feel empowered to commit more crimes in the future. The criminals don’t know if they’d be pardoned again, by a different president, next time.
Trump’s pardons were different.
By pardoning the January 6 rioters on his first day in office, Trump signaled to a bunch of his supporters, which included white supremacists and violent criminals, that they’re safe for the next four years. So long as Trump is in office, folks don’t have to worry about engaging in violence on behalf of him. (I’m not sure that Trump will pardon folks for engaging in pro-Nazi protests; Trump doesn’t care about the Nazis. But Trump will probably pardon you for engaging in pro-Trump protests; Trump cares about Trump.) Indeed, even the conservative Wall Street Journal recently noted that those Trump pardoned last week have been reenergized by his decision.
I don’t think Hunter Biden, Liz Cheney, and the others pardoned by Joe Biden pose serious threats to others.
But those pardoned by Trump? The next four years will tell.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.
The post Pardon Me appeared first on Above the Law.
Let’s think first about the Biden pardons; after that, the Trump pardons.
I understand, if I don’t necessarily agree with, President Biden’s pardons of his son, Hunter; the January 6 Committee; and other Biden family members.
When first asked, Biden shouldn’t have flatly denied any intent to pardon Hunter; that makes Biden a liar. Biden should instead have said, before Hunter was convicted, that the elder Biden would reserve judgment on pardoning Hunter to see how the process played out. After Hunter was convicted, the president should have said, basically, “I love my son. He’s not dangerous or a threat to national security. I’m the president. I’m pardoning Hunter. I know that you may criticize me for this, but that’s the way it is.”
That wouldn’t have made the pardon any more correct, but I think Americans generally would have understood the sentiment.
I also understand, if I don’t necessarily agree with, the pardons of the January 6 Committee and the other Biden family members. None of these people had been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes. But all of these people had been personally threatened by Trump and folks associated with Trump.
It’s a bit unusual (though not unprecedented; think of Jimmy Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War draft dodgers) to pardon people who have not been convicted of anything. It’s also a dangerous precedent to have presidents start pardoning their family members; I wouldn’t like pardoning all the relatives to become routine at the end of every president’s term. But I understand why Biden decided to do this. If Trump’s going to threaten folks who have not been indicted or charged, then Biden’s going to protect those people.
(I’m sure that I’ll hear from some Trump loyalists that the “Biden crime family” is all guilty as sin. That’s why I’ve phrased the previous paragraphs carefully: Other than Hunter, none of Biden’s relatives have been charged with, or convicted of, anything. That’s indisputable.)
Let’s think now about Trump’s January 6 pardons. Again, I’m certain to hear from Trump loyalists that all the January 6 rioters were members of antifa, FBI informants, or tourists simply visiting the Capitol Building. But remember what Republicans — Republicans — said about January 6 immediately after the event. The Atlantic recently had an article collecting those contemporaneous Republican reactions. We all know that Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Kevin McCarthy blamed Trump on, or just after, January 6, 2021. But I’m not sure I knew that Elise Stefanik, soon to be Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, said, “The perpetrators of this un-American violence and destruction must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” Doug Burgum, soon to be Trump’s Secretary of the Interior, said, “The violence happening at our nation’s capital is reprehensible and does not represent American values, and needs to stop immediately.” In fact, I’d forgotten completely that Trump himself said shortly after January 6 that “those who broke the law, you will pay,” and Trump later vowed that “those who engaged in the attacks last week will be brought to justice.”
I guess Americans really do have the memory of a goldfish. But my argument starts from the premise that there was violence on January 6 and folks who engaged in that violence were appropriately tried and sentenced.
What’s the excuse for Trump having given blanket pardons or commutations to people involved in the January 6 riot?
That the rioters didn’t do anything wrong? That’s what Trump’s saying now, but it’s simply not true. And anyone who watched TV on January 6, or listened to Republicans at the time, knows that Trump and his supporters are now lying.
Perhaps it’s OK for Trump to pardon the January 6 rioters because Biden issued some pardons?
No. Biden’s pardons were only marginally, if at all, misguided. Biden didn’t release dangerous convicts. Trump, in contrast, gave wholesale pardons and commutations to nearly 1,600 people who had been charged, convicted, and sentenced.
None of the folks convicted in the January 6 riots had committed violent crimes?
According to Lawfare, these are the statistics:
Of the total 1,583 arrested, according to the department’s figures, 608 — or 38 percent — were charged with either assaulting or impeding federal police officers. Of those that assaulted officers, 174 were charged with an enhanced version of the crime for using deadly or dangerous weapons or for inflicting bodily harm on the officer.
Some folks were convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting to keep President Trump in power and amassing weapons for that purpose. Sentences ranged up to 22 years. That ain’t beanbag.
Maybe folks sentenced to prison for their conduct on January 6 had already suffered enough?
Not in the eyes of the judges, and sentencing guidelines, which said that some of these criminals should have spent much, much longer in prison than they did.
Maybe the Black Lives Matter protestors weren’t prosecuted, so the January 6 protestors shouldn’t have been prosecuted either?
Be serious. First, anyone who destroyed property or injured people in any protest should be prosecuted. Black Lives Matter, January 6 rioters, whoever. Get real.
Second, at least some Black Lives Matter protestors were prosecuted. For example, prosecutors brought charges including arson, assault, and felony assault for the riot in Portland, Oregon.
Moreover, neither you nor I know exactly what happened in Portland (or, for that matter, at the Capitol Building). We don’t know precisely how serious the violence was. We don’t know who did what to whom. We don’t know what prosecutions would have faced evidentiary problems at trial — although it’s likely that there were more security cameras, broadcast television cameras, and personal iPhone cameras at the Capitol than in Portland, which probably aided the prosecutions of those who invaded the Capitol.
Maybe the January 6 rioters should escape punishment because you’ve heard stories about some guy in Portland or Minneapolis who should have been prosecuted and wasn’t?
You have no clue if the story you heard was true. Even if it were true, what does the story tell us? People routinely argue that “There was a blizzard yesterday, so climate change is a hoax,” or “I heard about one time when a good guy with a gun caught an escaping criminal, so there’s no need for gun control.” If you think that these sorts of anecdotes constitute argumentation, you need a lesson in logic.
Lastly, think of the timing of the pardons. Biden issued pardons as he left office, which is the usual way of doing these things. The president skulks out of office, no longer having to face the electorate, and he does some crappy stuff as he leaves. (Ask Bill Clinton about Marc Rich.) Those who were pardoned feel lucky, but they do not feel empowered to commit more crimes in the future. The criminals don’t know if they’d be pardoned again, by a different president, next time.
Trump’s pardons were different.
By pardoning the January 6 rioters on his first day in office, Trump signaled to a bunch of his supporters, which included white supremacists and violent criminals, that they’re safe for the next four years. So long as Trump is in office, folks don’t have to worry about engaging in violence on behalf of him. (I’m not sure that Trump will pardon folks for engaging in pro-Nazi protests; Trump doesn’t care about the Nazis. But Trump will probably pardon you for engaging in pro-Trump protests; Trump cares about Trump.) Indeed, even the conservative Wall Street Journal recently noted that those Trump pardoned last week have been reenergized by his decision.
I don’t think Hunter Biden, Liz Cheney, and the others pardoned by Joe Biden pose serious threats to others.
But those pardoned by Trump? The next four years will tell.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].
