Tuesday, May 20, 2025

Pardon Me?

 Let’s start here:

...Naomi Biden after reading Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s book about her grandfather: “Just read a copy of this silly book, and if anyone is curious for a review from someone who lived it first-hand: this book is political fairy smut for the permanent, professional chattering class. The ones who rarely enter the arena, but profit from the spectacle of those that do. Put simply, it amounts to a bunch of unoriginal, uninspired lies written by irresponsible self promoting journalists out to make a quick buck. It relies on unnamed, anonymous sources pushing a self-serving false narrative that absolves them of any responsibility for our current national nightmare. All of this at the expense of a man so completely good and honest that it is impossible for these people to ever understand the why or how of it all.”
I don’t quote that as the last word on Tapper’s book. I’d expect no less from a loving grandchild, though it certainly resonates with my impression of Biden’s character (and I wasn’t a fan when he was in the Judiciary Committee approving Thomas). I bring it up because it neatly questions Tapper’s book, which leads into this:
… Trump’s new DOJ Pardon Attorney Ed Martin says the stuff in the Tapper book may be used by him to try to nullify Biden’s pardons: “The integrity of the American Pardon system requires that we examine the Biden pardons and who did what. We will get the bottom of it. Count on us.”
Again, outside the 25th Amendment, there isn’t the hint of a “diminished capacity” clause, else we could look forward to rescinding all of Trump’s J6 pardons (which don’t seem to have upset the public nearly as much as DOGE or tariffs;,sadly). Bill Clinton was accused of basically “selling” pardons, but nothing ever came of it. His pardons stood, they were never actually challenged. Because they can’t be. The pardon power is virtually absolute and unreviewable. As I’ve said, Poppy Bush pardoned himself by eliminating the charges against all the Iran/Contra defendants before the public investigation could get to him. Before Trump, that was about the most corrupt use of the power I know of. And yet now, it’s barely a footnote in popular history.

I mention Tapper’s book because that’s clearly where Martin is getting his ideas. Not from any information gathered by a legally valid investigative process,  but from gossip. Not that Martin is going to go to court, but he’s not even making a pretense of doing a lawyer’s work. Naomi Biden raises real questions about the validity of Tapper’s book. Martin treats that same book as gospel, just to score political points for his boss. He has no real legal purpose. He’s just being a shill.

The more legitimate question here is the wisdom of the pardons clause. Texas and most Reconstruction states gave the governor the pardon power, but set up a state board with final approval. In Texas, unfortunately, that Board is appointed by the Governor, and Abbott has used that power the way you’d expect Trump to. But the basic idea is sound because, at least since Ford pardoned Nixon, the power has not been wielded entirely wisely.

And a Pardon Attorney in this administration is a cruel joke anyway. Especially one as corruptly political as Ed Martin.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)