The Atlantic: Pardon Trump's critics now!

[pnwmom]

Over the past several years, courageous Americans have risked their careers and perhaps even their liberty in an effort to stop Donald Trump’s return to power. Our collective failure to avoid that result now gives Trump an opportunity to exact revenge on them. President Joe Biden, in the remaining two months of his term in office, can and must prevent this by using one of the most powerful tools available to the president: the pardon power.

The risk of retribution is very real. One hallmark of Trump’s recently completed campaign was his regular calls for vengeance against his enemies. Over the past few months, he has said, for example, that Liz Cheney was a traitor. He’s also said that she is a “war hawk.” “Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her,” he said. Likewise, Trump has floated the idea of executing General Mark Milley, calling him treasonous. Meanwhile, Trump has identified his political opponents and the press as “enemies of the people” and has threatened his perceived enemies with prosecution or punishment more than 100 times. There can be little doubt that Trump has an enemies list, and the people on it are in danger—most likely legal, though I shudder to think of other possibilities.


Biden has the unfettered power to issue pardons, and he should use it liberally. He should offer pardons, in addition to Cheney and Milley, to all of Trump’s most prominent opponents: Republican critics, such as Adam Kinzinger, who put country before party to tell the truth about January 6; their Democratic colleagues from the House special committee; military leaders such as Jim Mattis, H. R. McMaster, and William McRaven; witnesses to Trump’s conduct who worked for him and have since condemned him, including Miles Taylor, Olivia Troye, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Cassidy Hutchinson, and Sarah Matthews; political opponents such as Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff; and others who have been vocal in their negative views, such as George Conway and Bill Kristol.

The power to pardon is grounded in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives a nearly unlimited power to the president. It says the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That’s it. A president’s authority to pardon is pretty much without limitation as to reason, subject, scope, or timing

.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/11/presidential-pardon-trump-critics/680627/

[Buns_of_Fire]

1. archive.ph copy:

https://archive.ph/jYZnB

I'd do it just to spite the bastard. But then, I'd have no problem with President Fatfuk holding his Cabinet meetings in cellblock D, either.

[Think. Again.]

2. K&R

[tetedur]

3. So it is a crime to be vocal and have a negative view on Trump? I did not know that. When were these laws passed?

If any of these critics were taken to trial, evidence of why and what they said or did would be brought to a grand jury, a judge, and the trial jury. Let's have discovery. Let's call Trump to the stand to testify. Reasons for what they did would be argued in court. So let's have a legal airing of all their criticisms. While you might be able to get juries to convict a critic for being critical, can you get a jury to convict for a crime that does not exist?

[dsc]

4. easy for you to say

you wouldn't be the one being charged.

[tetedur]

5. I have very negative views of Trump. While I'm not nationally vocal on TV, I do post.

If the threat of prosecution for non-existent crimes silences people, Trump wins.

And yes it is very easy for me to say. I believe we still have freedom of speech. I did not know it was suspended for the sake of Trump's feelings. I didn't know we no longer had the right to call out crimes by Trump when they happened.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. Since Trump does not believe in the Constitution, why should anyone count on the First Amendment?

[tetedur]

15. Will his legal geniuses be able to convict people for crimes that are not on the books?

You remember them. Remember the 61 cases for election irregularities that they could get one judge to agree with their side.
While I would agree Trump does not believe in the Constitution, does that mean the Constitution is abolished?

When the firing squads line up people for criticism, they will have to have a lot of bullets. Lines will be long. And we will all go like lambs to the slaughter. I am old but when I stand in line I will advocate for everyone to make a break for it simultaneously.

[maxrandb]

9. Are you going to pay their legal defense fees?

Unless you think there is anything connected to the "rule of law" in these "revenge" prosecutions Donnie Dipshit fantasizes about.

Hell, he doesn't even need to bring actual charges.

The chilling effect is the point.

It's kind of cute that you still think we live in a democracy.

[tetedur]

18. I think it is kind of disappointing that Trump isn't in power yet and there are Americans who have given up.

There are Americans who would surrender ahead of time instead of fighting. Those who criticized Trump on TV were brave enough to do that. They thought they didn't have to acquiesce to Trump because the rule of law was still intact.

Legal fees? Trump used to not pay contractors for work they did because he knew it would cost them legal fees they couldn't afford. It's a good way to push people around. By 2019 he had been involved in 3500 legal actions against people. It is how he uses the courts to get his way.

Stormy Daniels owed $600,000 to Trump and a GoFundMe effort helped her out. So there are ways to fight.

I haven't been called cute since I was 6 so thanks for that.

[liberal N proud]

12. Since November 5th, anything is possible

[MadameButterfly]

14. You assume they'll get fair trials

They might get Judge Cannon. They might just get investigated for years, incurring mounting legal debts. They might get audited by the IRS. Or they might get arrested and imprisoned with no trial.

Of course, if things are this extra-legal, I'm not sure a pardon would help them either. It might just imply they are guilty of something. Or Trump could just ignore it, like he'd have to ignore a bunch of laws and the constitution to go after these people.

But my worst and most imminent fear of a Trump administration is the targeting of Trumps critics, our best and brightest heroes, the people we need to keep democracy alive and to show future critics that they can resist and survive.

How we protect and support these people will determine whether our democracy survives. If America supports or goes along with or does nothing in the face of persecution for freedom of speech, then all is lost.

We have to have a plan. The pardon is one idea. But even if Biden does it, it is not enough. We need to appeal to military and law enforcement, to be unwilling to carry our illegal orders. Or we need a state by state National Guard activated to protect innocent people from illegal arrests. We need a pro bono legal army to represent anyone unjustly accused.

We need some way to keep our left leaning networks on the air when Trump tries to get them cancelled. This might mean replacing networks run by conservatives (like MSNBC) with real liberal owners. Just as Blue Sky is emerging as a Twitter alternative, we need a real solid station where the owners will not desert us. This is necessary for the press to publicize whatever is happening to Trump critics so they cannot be harmed without a mass public outcry.

[Old Crank]

21. Criticism is not a crime, but.

Can you afford a lawyer that handles federal crimes?.
This is the equivalent of SLAP suits. I don't think you can get money damages for false prosecution.

[tetedur]

22. What is the federal crime?

Can any one answer the question? Would the ACLU know?

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/slapp-suits/

[A] SLAPP action, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, the actual purpose is to silence and even punish the defendant for speaking out on a matter of public interest through a costly and lengthy legal battle... Defendants in SLAPP suits can mount an immunity defense based on the First Amendment clause that gives citizens the right to petition for redress of grievances. This immunity is often known as the “Noerr-Pennington immunity”. The Noerr-Pennington cases provided a basis to protect SLAPP defendants so long as the defendant’s activity that prompted the lawsuit wasn’t itself a sham.

According to the Institute for Free Speech, 33 states and the District of Columbia have passed anti-SLAPP laws of varying strength, leaving 17 states without anti-SLAPP statutes. ...

One prominent example of a successful anti-SLAPP defense came in 2018 when defendants won nearly $2 million in fees and costs from the late Nevada casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. The matter involved a claim by Adelson against the National Jewish Democratic Council during the 2012 election cycle for an online petition that stated Adelson personally approved of prostitution in his Asian casinos.

Conversely, efforts by Fox News to use New York’s anti-SLAPP laws to help defend itself from defamation claims in lawsuits over its coverage and commentary on election fraud claims in the 2020 presidential election have been unsuccessful.

Congress has not enacted an anti-SLAPP law that would apply to federal court cases. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, court decisions have been mixed on whether anti-SLAPP provisions set by states can apply to libel and defamation actions that land in federal courts.

Trump's DOJ is going to be mighty busy prosecuting Trump's critics. The military is going to be mighty busy courts martialing their own for following lawful orders. In the meantime, they will be rounding up and deporting 20 million aliens all while cutting the federal bureaucracy by two-thirds. My guess there will be new people to go after every day as time goes along.

[Old Crank]

23. What ever his goons decide it will be.

With made up nonsense. We know this is garbage but he is likely to try to do this. This is to get people to shut up and not criticize the new king.

Judges will have to step up immediately and call any of these charges BS. Will they?

[tetedur]

24. Did they during the 61 election fraud cases?

[Easterncedar]

6. I don't understand how it works legally

How can a person be pardoned in advance for something that isn’t now a crime?

Handing out medals of freedom to Kinzinger et al. right now might be fun.

[UpInArms]

10. 👆🏼

This ..

Pardon them for what crime? Criticism?

[MadameButterfly]

16. I like the medals of freedom idea

Hope it protects rather than putting a target on their backs, though

[Seeking Serenity]

8. Doesn't the acceptance of a pardon mean that the person acknowledges that a crime committed?

Or something like that? (Except that President Ford preemptively pardoned Richard Nixon, and I don't remember that Nixon had to admit to anything or that anything happened in connection with the pardon, so I may just be blabbing without knowing what I'm talking about. )

[UpInArms]

11. Here's the wiki on that

The Ford White House considered a pardon of Nixon, but it would be unpopular in the country. Nixon, contacted by Ford emissaries, was initially reluctant to accept the pardon but then agreed to do so. Ford, however, insisted on a statement of contrition; Nixon felt he had not committed any crimes and should not have to issue such a document. Ford eventually agreed, and on September 8, 1974, he granted Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon" that ended any possibility of an indictment. Nixon then released a statement:

I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy. No words can describe the depth of my regret and pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have caused the nation and the presidency, a nation I so deeply love, and an institution I so greatly respect.

[Seeking Serenity]

13. Thanks, fam!

[maxrandb]

17. There isn't enough time in the world to issue enough pardons

That orange fucksticks "enemies list" includes the 81 million that didn't vote for him in 2020, and the 73 million that didn't vote for him in 2024.

Remember that NYC Police Officer that failed to hold the door open for him during his felony trial? Yep, he'll even go after him too.

It's OK though. My MAGA loving 70+ year old emphesimic brother, with heart desease, has promised me that, if Donnie Dipshit uses the power of the state to come after me, or my gay child, he will be the first in line to defend us.

[Martin Eden]

19. To accept a pardon, does a person have to admit committing the crime?

That would validate Trump's accusations of treason.

[bucolic_frolic]

20. Issue a blanket USA Pardon based on First Amendment, to all Americans

Would show what BS "retribution" is as a policy, a goal, a pet peeve, or whatever it is.

But I wonder if Trump could still sue them all privately, not using the government in a criminal charge, but privately.