Much of his J6 pardons are bad but honestly the cancelling of flights for 1,600 Afghan refugees who'd already been vetted just seems small and unnecessary. I'm sure it'll play with with an element of the base but it's bad policy and likely bad politics.
Chris, this just made me sick. Yes, Trump said he would do it, he campaigned on it and not surprised. Yet, to actually see it happen, it’s a gut punch. The horror of J6 will forever be etched in my mind, as will it be for so many others. Disgraceful act.
At the same time Trump was putting hundreds of violent felons on the streets of America, Chris was calling "shameful" a brotherly act of compassion by President Biden. President Biden took Trump's words seriously and moved to protect siblings who had done nothing wrong whatsoever. And with that move and Chris' words, he has lost me forever. My subscription is paid into April but my time is not worth being spent reading Chris' ongoing verbal assault on President Biden and, more recently, Jennifer Rubin. I can only conclude that somewhere along the way Chris thought he was the victim of a slight from both President Biden and Ms. Rubin. Jen's new Substack location, The Contrarian, has grown like a Los Angeles wildfire in just a week. You can find me there.
I do want to thank all of the people who have read my comments and sent nice messages my way during my time as a So What subscriber. I want you to know that I have followed Chris' work from his years at the WaPo to CNN and to So What. But, as stated previously, Chris' thoughts are no longer worthy of the time of this aging American.
Biden was far from being a perfect president and Chris is pointing out what he feels are his faults / mistakes. I do not like Trump, but I do feel Biden failed us in the end!
Biden’s pardons were a nothing-burger. They will not be some legacy taint as Chris wrote yesterday. That viewpoint was based on looking at politics pre-Trump.
The big taint on his legacy will be him deciding to run for reelection, which directly led, in my opinion, to the election of Trump
I would just say we shouldn’t be surprised, he said he was gonna do it. He meant it when he said it. He did it. No hypocrisy. You may disagree, but he campaigned on it. People elected him with that knowledge when they were at the polls.
Trump also said (in 2016) that he would build a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for. Also that he would invest billions into infrastructure, repeal and replace Obamacare, eliminate the federal debt, etc. The promise to pardon all the J6 thugs was one promise I hoped he would break.
All of those other promises depended on support from external actors. The pardon power does not. If he can do it with "a pen and a phine," you best believe he's going to - as he cheekily promised early on, he'll be a dictator on the first day, and he stuck to that promise. Once he gets his pardons and EOs out of the way, I think we'll start seeing broken promises once more.
I don't believe the President can unilaterally stop funding Ukraine, so that falls under depending on support from external forces, as do bacon prices. Bacon prices in particular are much bigger than government policy in general. Government can always make the market worse, but there's little it can do to make it better.
The tariffs are a fair point, but I don't think he's done with his EOs yet! Stand by on that one.
His VP said just a few days ago that "that the pardon question is “very simple,” saying those who “protested peacefully” should be pardoned and “if you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned."
It is the only way I can keep my sanity. Believe him when he says something, he will do it. And if people complain, I remind them of the fact, they voted for a known quantity. They are getting what they wanted.
Also, recent polls from many sources found that over 60% did not agree with pardons for Jan 6 perpetrators.
He did this just to make the crimes he did on Jan 6, and with fake electors, and with pressuring state officials to change legitamite vote totals to favor him, to make it look like he was innocent too.
And sure, "it was needed" to do what exactly? To release violent criminals onto the streets? And make politucal violence protected going forward, as long as the violence is in support of maga? How un-American can you be?
Well, last time he ran on building a wall and Mexico paying for it, and how did that work out? this time, he ran on lowering grocery prices, (which he walked back right after the election - “when things are up, it’s hard to bring them down”), and he’d end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. Well there’s still 2 1/2 hours. Oh, wait - walked that back too. Now, might be 6 months.
He also said he would bring law and order. Pardoning those who committed violence, and all those who plead guilty undermines law and order and wipes out 4 years of work by the Justice Dept and courts across the land to enforce law and order. And it gives a green light to commit political violence as long as the perpetrators are maga. Which is the opposite of law and order.
Seems Trump just grabbed Lady Justice by the, well, you know. His executive orders were, in large part, to undo all of the good things Pres. Biden did but his action on the Jan. 6 rioters/insurrectionists/traitors is unconscionable. His first day showed the hell we're in for.
Instant brownshirts. Those folks will have an undying loyalty to the fella for whom they rioted, and who, by releasing them, named their cause righteous. These are thugs, criminals, white nationalists, and stupid acolytes now unleashed on the United States. Thanks, TrumpMusk.
I love how Republicans try to justify Trump's actions by saying Americans voted for Trump, as if ALL Americans did. God forbid they actually say something truthful or accurate. And learn how to use a pronoun, such as 'half' or 'some'. Idiots.
Thank you for using words like “dangerous” rather than indulgent words like “kooky”, “nutty”, etc. Trump is a threat to us all. It’s long past time to take this threat seriously. Words matter.
Hmmmmm....pardoning those that assaulted police and engaged in an actual, once in America's history insurrection is "dangerous", but not also "SHAMEFUL" and how about "disgraceful"...and "Anti-American" and "unprecedented abuse of power"????
Nice try, Chris in lamely trying to balance the shameful post yesterday chastising President Biden's preemptive pardons that "looked bad" while ignoring the fact that It is SHAMEFUL that pardons that President Biden did ARE EVEN NECESSARY!!
Trump did what he promised to do with the J6 traitors. There is ZERO reason to doubt that he will do what he also promised to seek “vengeance” and “retribution” to go after his perceived enemies....hence President Biden's preemptive pardons.
The issue I have is that the lame effort by the "media" at "bothsiderim" which barely distinguishes the exponential HUGE differences between these two uses of pardon power.
The false equivalence is a grave disservice to our collective intelligence and journalistic integrity.
Just think. This is what Trump did on DAY ONE!!!
Ignoring that he already violated his oath of office on DAY ONE, to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he actually used an executive order to shit on and unilaterally REPEAL the 14th Amendment in his obsession with getting rid of "birthright citizenship".
This is the OPPOSITE of "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"
Trump II is going to be a LOT worse than anyone can imagine.
I agree completely. In effect, trump is putting his goon squad back on the streets. he can call them up anytime, and they know they can do anything he asks, because he will pardon them. And thanks to the bought and paid for SCOTUS, he can call them to do anything he wants and he has immunity.
I'm not surprised. But I am profoundly disappointed. Struggling to understand what I as one person can do with all this information -- I read up and follow politics like some people follow sports. But that has no impact. Guess I'm going to write a lot of emails to my Congressional delegation.
I was really hoping he would pardon the peaceful ones and leave the violent ones to their fate. I certainly wasn't expecting, but I was hoping. Sigh. Pretty bleak day.
I really dislike that the executive has power to override the judicial. I've heard the arguments on why pardon power is necessary and I find them lacking. It's wide open for abuse, as we've seen from both parties within a few hour's time. I'm hoping this will make people get serious about executive overreach... But much like my hopes about the J6 pardons, I expect it'll just snowball instead.
I'm not sure about elimination but definitely reform. Something like a nonpartisan review board provides the President a list or similar. But absolutely the current system is ripe for abuse. I recall Mark Rich back in the Clinton era but I'm sure there were others before that.
I'd have to go back & read the Federalist papers to better understand why it's in the Constitution. They were very much about separation of powers in so many ways so it does seem odd they left in this one almost Royal concept.
Jon Favreau said last night that the pardoning powers are too extreme now....for all presidents. He asked, "What's to stop Trump from hiring someone to murder one of his political opponents with the promise that he'll pardon them? And the Supreme Court has said that Trump would be immune from prosecution."
Immune for actions related to official core constitutional duties; presumptively immune for implied ("outer perimeter") presidential duties. I don't think hiring a murderer fits into the S Ct's ruling. Let's hope this is a bridge we won't have to cross.
djt would just say he had to do it because that political opponent was a threat to the country, and he saved the nation from great harm by murdering that person, or some other nonesense.
Eh? Most law schools don't even require con law. Precedential history is generally the focus. This is the first Supreme Court in awhile to care deeply about the text of the Constitution - it's the entire point of originalism.
What? Where did you get that idea? Con law is the basis for everything else in the law. It was a requirement in my first year.
And, no, the far right justices don't care at all about the text of the Constitution, which they completely disregard when it gets in the way, or else Trump wouldn't be sitting in the White House today.
I amended that statement in a reply to myself, as I realized "most" may not be accurate. Furthermore, I did not go to law school, so I will defer to you on that point. Is it not the case that precedent is generally considered more of a focus, than con law? I'm under the impression that much more time is spent interpreting the Constitution in relation to historical precedent than original constitutional principles.
What case did the Supreme Court take that would have prevented Trump from taking office had they originalists ruled another way? Or which case did the Court reject that would have prevented him from running had they taken it and ruled from an originalist philosophy?
I don't think hiring a hitman is an official act of the executive, and it's certainly not within the core constitutional powers of the office. He could be charged. That said, he could absolutely pardon the hitman - and since preemptive pardons are now precedent, he might be able to do so for himself.
However, if the President asks his/her Attorney General to have the military (Seal Team 6?) arrest/execute a political rival, under the Supreme Court ruling, the President is immune, because any conversations with the DOJ are considered protected. The AG or others might be accountable, however, not the President. Would even be true if the President asked the Attorney General to remove or kill Supreme Court Justice(s) who may have ruled against him. Any conversation with the AG is considered an official act, even more protected right now than speaking with your lawyer, in which case you and your counsel can be prosecuted if the conversation is in the furtherance of a crime - SCOTUS did not so limit the protection provided when the President speaks with his/her AG.
The conversation is protected, which means the conversation cannot be used as evidence, nor can it be attained by a court order. That makes it harder to prove guilt, as it would be supremely solid evidence, but it doesn't bar him from being charged.
Commander in chief gives military orders to the Pentagon not DOJ.
I haven't researched this but a President's communications privilege is related but separate - a bit afield from the criminal immunity shield in its own right.
Back to your Navy Seal example. For me, the question is one of the most challenging. Just sharing my thought process.
Seems a fact specific inquiry is necessary. Was the Seal planning to kill fellow Seals? Was he strapped with an IED in Times Square? Was he selling US secrets, imminently endangering the US? Was he a whistle-blower speaking out against US policy? (To varying degrees, the facts could show justification). If the hypothetical Seal is a whistle-blower merely criticizing US Policy (for example), any order from the Pres to kill the Seal, it could be argued, would (a) not be an official act (not a military order at all) and (b) even if the commander in chief ordered the killing, military personnel are not required to obey an illegal order.
Preemptive pardons have been around for awhile (e.g. Ford pardoned Nixon). Self-pardon would be novel. Now that would be an interesting case for the US Supreme Court!
While this is true, the Nixon pardon was an unprecedented response to an unprecedented situation. Biden's pardons were not that, and the precedent they set is quite different. I highly doubt Trump gives a damn about precedent of any kind, so this is mostly irrelevant for the next 4 years, but I worry about it beyond Trump's term.
"George Washington first exercised the pardon power in 1795 after he issued amnesty to those engaged in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion. Thomas Jefferson granted amnesty to any citizen convicted of a crime under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Abraham Lincoln used clemency to encourage desertions from the Confederate Army. In 1868, Andrew Johnson’s pardon of Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy, ..."
Much of his J6 pardons are bad but honestly the cancelling of flights for 1,600 Afghan refugees who'd already been vetted just seems small and unnecessary. I'm sure it'll play with with an element of the base but it's bad policy and likely bad politics.
Chris, this just made me sick. Yes, Trump said he would do it, he campaigned on it and not surprised. Yet, to actually see it happen, it’s a gut punch. The horror of J6 will forever be etched in my mind, as will it be for so many others. Disgraceful act.
At the same time Trump was putting hundreds of violent felons on the streets of America, Chris was calling "shameful" a brotherly act of compassion by President Biden. President Biden took Trump's words seriously and moved to protect siblings who had done nothing wrong whatsoever. And with that move and Chris' words, he has lost me forever. My subscription is paid into April but my time is not worth being spent reading Chris' ongoing verbal assault on President Biden and, more recently, Jennifer Rubin. I can only conclude that somewhere along the way Chris thought he was the victim of a slight from both President Biden and Ms. Rubin. Jen's new Substack location, The Contrarian, has grown like a Los Angeles wildfire in just a week. You can find me there.
I do want to thank all of the people who have read my comments and sent nice messages my way during my time as a So What subscriber. I want you to know that I have followed Chris' work from his years at the WaPo to CNN and to So What. But, as stated previously, Chris' thoughts are no longer worthy of the time of this aging American.
Biden was far from being a perfect president and Chris is pointing out what he feels are his faults / mistakes. I do not like Trump, but I do feel Biden failed us in the end!
Biden’s pardons were a nothing-burger. They will not be some legacy taint as Chris wrote yesterday. That viewpoint was based on looking at politics pre-Trump.
The big taint on his legacy will be him deciding to run for reelection, which directly led, in my opinion, to the election of Trump
I would just say we shouldn’t be surprised, he said he was gonna do it. He meant it when he said it. He did it. No hypocrisy. You may disagree, but he campaigned on it. People elected him with that knowledge when they were at the polls.
Fair enough.
Trump also said (in 2016) that he would build a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for. Also that he would invest billions into infrastructure, repeal and replace Obamacare, eliminate the federal debt, etc. The promise to pardon all the J6 thugs was one promise I hoped he would break.
All of those other promises depended on support from external actors. The pardon power does not. If he can do it with "a pen and a phine," you best believe he's going to - as he cheekily promised early on, he'll be a dictator on the first day, and he stuck to that promise. Once he gets his pardons and EOs out of the way, I think we'll start seeing broken promises once more.
Well, the war in Ukraine is still going on and it's been a day, so there is another. And no tariffs on day 1, so there is a 3rd.
I'll stop by the grocery store to see if bacon has gotten cheaper.
I don't believe the President can unilaterally stop funding Ukraine, so that falls under depending on support from external forces, as do bacon prices. Bacon prices in particular are much bigger than government policy in general. Government can always make the market worse, but there's little it can do to make it better.
The tariffs are a fair point, but I don't think he's done with his EOs yet! Stand by on that one.
We can only hope.....
Amen.
His VP said just a few days ago that "that the pardon question is “very simple,” saying those who “protested peacefully” should be pardoned and “if you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned."
This may be the first time JD Vance has said something that was LESS cringey than Trump.
Yes! And, it was based on reality and decency, a novel approach for JD.
It is the only way I can keep my sanity. Believe him when he says something, he will do it. And if people complain, I remind them of the fact, they voted for a known quantity. They are getting what they wanted.
Also, recent polls from many sources found that over 60% did not agree with pardons for Jan 6 perpetrators.
He did this just to make the crimes he did on Jan 6, and with fake electors, and with pressuring state officials to change legitamite vote totals to favor him, to make it look like he was innocent too.
No % was needed. Just 1 person following through on what he campaigned on.
He campaigned on "fixing everything" too. Do you actually believe that?
His own VP said a few days ago that "obviously those that committed violence should not be pardoned."
And let me amend that, he said he would "fix everything. And very quickly." And I suppose you believe that, lol
And sure, "it was needed" to do what exactly? To release violent criminals onto the streets? And make politucal violence protected going forward, as long as the violence is in support of maga? How un-American can you be?
Getting his stormtroopers ready.
It appears so, his loyal troopers. It's sickening.
Well, last time he ran on building a wall and Mexico paying for it, and how did that work out? this time, he ran on lowering grocery prices, (which he walked back right after the election - “when things are up, it’s hard to bring them down”), and he’d end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. Well there’s still 2 1/2 hours. Oh, wait - walked that back too. Now, might be 6 months.
He also said he would bring law and order. Pardoning those who committed violence, and all those who plead guilty undermines law and order and wipes out 4 years of work by the Justice Dept and courts across the land to enforce law and order. And it gives a green light to commit political violence as long as the perpetrators are maga. Which is the opposite of law and order.
Still reprehensible
Sorry the people don't decide the laws Lawyers courts and laws do
To justify this because he said he was going to do it is just complicity
Why DO you hate America? Are you another MAGAt on Putin's payroll?
Disgusted? Yes. Surprised? Not at all. The worst part is that executive orders can be challenged in court, but pardons can’t.
Seems Trump just grabbed Lady Justice by the, well, you know. His executive orders were, in large part, to undo all of the good things Pres. Biden did but his action on the Jan. 6 rioters/insurrectionists/traitors is unconscionable. His first day showed the hell we're in for.
Instant brownshirts. Those folks will have an undying loyalty to the fella for whom they rioted, and who, by releasing them, named their cause righteous. These are thugs, criminals, white nationalists, and stupid acolytes now unleashed on the United States. Thanks, TrumpMusk.
I love how Republicans try to justify Trump's actions by saying Americans voted for Trump, as if ALL Americans did. God forbid they actually say something truthful or accurate. And learn how to use a pronoun, such as 'half' or 'some'. Idiots.
Thank you for using words like “dangerous” rather than indulgent words like “kooky”, “nutty”, etc. Trump is a threat to us all. It’s long past time to take this threat seriously. Words matter.
Hmmmmm....pardoning those that assaulted police and engaged in an actual, once in America's history insurrection is "dangerous", but not also "SHAMEFUL" and how about "disgraceful"...and "Anti-American" and "unprecedented abuse of power"????
Nice try, Chris in lamely trying to balance the shameful post yesterday chastising President Biden's preemptive pardons that "looked bad" while ignoring the fact that It is SHAMEFUL that pardons that President Biden did ARE EVEN NECESSARY!!
Trump did what he promised to do with the J6 traitors. There is ZERO reason to doubt that he will do what he also promised to seek “vengeance” and “retribution” to go after his perceived enemies....hence President Biden's preemptive pardons.
The issue I have is that the lame effort by the "media" at "bothsiderim" which barely distinguishes the exponential HUGE differences between these two uses of pardon power.
The false equivalence is a grave disservice to our collective intelligence and journalistic integrity.
Just think. This is what Trump did on DAY ONE!!!
Ignoring that he already violated his oath of office on DAY ONE, to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he actually used an executive order to shit on and unilaterally REPEAL the 14th Amendment in his obsession with getting rid of "birthright citizenship".
This is the OPPOSITE of "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"
Trump II is going to be a LOT worse than anyone can imagine.
I think some of us can imagine it, hence the anger and disgust.
"...the rule of law can be ignored if you are a supporter of Donald Trump." Absolutely, Chris, thank you for your article on this today.
This feels like the novel 1984 come to life.
Written in 1948. Just sayin'.
I agree completely. In effect, trump is putting his goon squad back on the streets. he can call them up anytime, and they know they can do anything he asks, because he will pardon them. And thanks to the bought and paid for SCOTUS, he can call them to do anything he wants and he has immunity.
It’s the era of “rule by the lawless,” thanks to CJ Roberts
I'm not surprised. But I am profoundly disappointed. Struggling to understand what I as one person can do with all this information -- I read up and follow politics like some people follow sports. But that has no impact. Guess I'm going to write a lot of emails to my Congressional delegation.
I was really hoping he would pardon the peaceful ones and leave the violent ones to their fate. I certainly wasn't expecting, but I was hoping. Sigh. Pretty bleak day.
I really dislike that the executive has power to override the judicial. I've heard the arguments on why pardon power is necessary and I find them lacking. It's wide open for abuse, as we've seen from both parties within a few hour's time. I'm hoping this will make people get serious about executive overreach... But much like my hopes about the J6 pardons, I expect it'll just snowball instead.
We should eliminate the presidential pardon power. Period. Ripe for and with abuse.
I'm not sure about elimination but definitely reform. Something like a nonpartisan review board provides the President a list or similar. But absolutely the current system is ripe for abuse. I recall Mark Rich back in the Clinton era but I'm sure there were others before that.
I'd have to go back & read the Federalist papers to better understand why it's in the Constitution. They were very much about separation of powers in so many ways so it does seem odd they left in this one almost Royal concept.
Jon Favreau said last night that the pardoning powers are too extreme now....for all presidents. He asked, "What's to stop Trump from hiring someone to murder one of his political opponents with the promise that he'll pardon them? And the Supreme Court has said that Trump would be immune from prosecution."
Immune for actions related to official core constitutional duties; presumptively immune for implied ("outer perimeter") presidential duties. I don't think hiring a murderer fits into the S Ct's ruling. Let's hope this is a bridge we won't have to cross.
djt would just say he had to do it because that political opponent was a threat to the country, and he saved the nation from great harm by murdering that person, or some other nonesense.
Please. This lawless Supreme Court has no interest in the Constitution. Except for the Holy Second Amendment, of course.
Eh? Most law schools don't even require con law. Precedential history is generally the focus. This is the first Supreme Court in awhile to care deeply about the text of the Constitution - it's the entire point of originalism.
What? Where did you get that idea? Con law is the basis for everything else in the law. It was a requirement in my first year.
And, no, the far right justices don't care at all about the text of the Constitution, which they completely disregard when it gets in the way, or else Trump wouldn't be sitting in the White House today.
I amended that statement in a reply to myself, as I realized "most" may not be accurate. Furthermore, I did not go to law school, so I will defer to you on that point. Is it not the case that precedent is generally considered more of a focus, than con law? I'm under the impression that much more time is spent interpreting the Constitution in relation to historical precedent than original constitutional principles.
What case did the Supreme Court take that would have prevented Trump from taking office had they originalists ruled another way? Or which case did the Court reject that would have prevented him from running had they taken it and ruled from an originalist philosophy?
Only with the Holy half part of the second amendment that they recognize.
But that determination would ultimately come back to them, conveniently. Until he's out of office, it's a moot point anyway.
I don't think hiring a hitman is an official act of the executive, and it's certainly not within the core constitutional powers of the office. He could be charged. That said, he could absolutely pardon the hitman - and since preemptive pardons are now precedent, he might be able to do so for himself.
However, if the President asks his/her Attorney General to have the military (Seal Team 6?) arrest/execute a political rival, under the Supreme Court ruling, the President is immune, because any conversations with the DOJ are considered protected. The AG or others might be accountable, however, not the President. Would even be true if the President asked the Attorney General to remove or kill Supreme Court Justice(s) who may have ruled against him. Any conversation with the AG is considered an official act, even more protected right now than speaking with your lawyer, in which case you and your counsel can be prosecuted if the conversation is in the furtherance of a crime - SCOTUS did not so limit the protection provided when the President speaks with his/her AG.
The conversation is protected, which means the conversation cannot be used as evidence, nor can it be attained by a court order. That makes it harder to prove guilt, as it would be supremely solid evidence, but it doesn't bar him from being charged.
Commander in chief gives military orders to the Pentagon not DOJ.
I haven't researched this but a President's communications privilege is related but separate - a bit afield from the criminal immunity shield in its own right.
Back to your Navy Seal example. For me, the question is one of the most challenging. Just sharing my thought process.
Seems a fact specific inquiry is necessary. Was the Seal planning to kill fellow Seals? Was he strapped with an IED in Times Square? Was he selling US secrets, imminently endangering the US? Was he a whistle-blower speaking out against US policy? (To varying degrees, the facts could show justification). If the hypothetical Seal is a whistle-blower merely criticizing US Policy (for example), any order from the Pres to kill the Seal, it could be argued, would (a) not be an official act (not a military order at all) and (b) even if the commander in chief ordered the killing, military personnel are not required to obey an illegal order.
Let's hope this type of case never comes to pass.
Preemptive pardons have been around for awhile (e.g. Ford pardoned Nixon). Self-pardon would be novel. Now that would be an interesting case for the US Supreme Court!
While this is true, the Nixon pardon was an unprecedented response to an unprecedented situation. Biden's pardons were not that, and the precedent they set is quite different. I highly doubt Trump gives a damn about precedent of any kind, so this is mostly irrelevant for the next 4 years, but I worry about it beyond Trump's term.
FYI
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-history-of-the-pardon-power
"George Washington first exercised the pardon power in 1795 after he issued amnesty to those engaged in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion. Thomas Jefferson granted amnesty to any citizen convicted of a crime under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Abraham Lincoln used clemency to encourage desertions from the Confederate Army. In 1868, Andrew Johnson’s pardon of Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy, ..."