As someone who votes in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, and California, I'm well aware of how the "D" partisan lean works. Of course she had to be a Democrat in Hawaii, but was she Putin-loving 20 years ago, or when she was on the Honolulu City Council? When she was vice chair of the DNC? Or is that something she's come to more recently? That she fits better with today's Republican party is obvious; what's less obvious is why it took her so long to figure that out, why she stuck it out with the Democratic party given that she was pissed off at them almost a decade ago.
Hard to say if she was always this way or it's a more recent development. It probably didn't come up much during her City Council days, but as far back as 2015 she was parroting Kremlin talking points on Syria so that goes back at least as far as her days on the DNC (and in Congress).
... as far back as 2015 she was parroting Kremlin talking points on Syria so that goes back at least as far as her days on the DNC (and in Congress).
And yet she remained a Democrat for years after this, until after she had had more arguments with Democratic leadership over internal processes (debates and superdelegates) and after flaming out before the 2020 primaries. I'm not saying aggrievement was the only reason, but feeling aggrieved seems to play a role in some or even many people's decisions to support Trump, some for better reasons than others.
What I’m pushing back against is a suggestion that it’s only about messaging.
And even if it is was just about messaging, good messaging can’t happen without first listening.
And the Democrats have been abysmal at listening. Polls were telling them the majority of Democratic voters thought Biden was too old months before he dropped out. The Biden campaign's internal polling this past summer said Trump would win 400 electoral college votes. They talk about being members of the reality-based community, but Democratic leadership failed us horribly by not paying attention to things they actually knew, never mind learning things they didn't already know.
These may seem like small victories, but Democrats did better at the state level. Politico reports
Democrats held onto a one-seat majority in the Pennsylvania House, flipped 14 seats in Wisconsin under new electoral maps, and broke the GOP supermajority in North Carolina, giving weight to Democratic Gov.-elect Josh Stein’s veto power.
Now, if the national party can tap into the messages that worked in the state races, there may be a comeback on the horizon.
Filling out citizenship application for a poor elderly disabled green card holder now. So much fun! I will say, over the past four years they have simplified the process considerably, thank God.
These may seem like small victories, but Democrats did better at the state level. Politico reports
Democrats held onto a one-seat majority in the Pennsylvania House, flipped 14 seats in Wisconsin under new electoral maps, and broke the GOP supermajority in North Carolina, giving weight to Democratic Gov.-elect Josh Stein’s veto power.
Now, if the national party can tap into the messages that worked in the state races, there may be a comeback on the horizon.
What worked in Wisconsin was eliminating the state's absurd gerrymander. I'm not sure that scales up to a national level or has any message behind it other than "gerrymandering is undemocratic".
50%+1 of the electoral college votes, and you have a president functionally elected by national popular vote, without the need to amend the US constitution.
... as far back as 2015 she was parroting Kremlin talking points on Syria so that goes back at least as far as her days on the DNC (and in Congress).
And yet she remained a Democrat for years after this, until after she had had more arguments with Democratic leadership over internal processes (debates and superdelegates) and after flaming out before the 2020 primaries. I'm not saying aggrievement was the only reason, but feeling aggrieved seems to play a role in some or even many people's decisions to support Trump, some for better reasons than others.
What I’m pushing back against is a suggestion that it’s only about messaging.
And even if it is was just about messaging, good messaging can’t happen without first listening.
And the Democrats have been abysmal at listening. Polls were telling them the majority of Democratic voters thought Biden was too old months before he dropped out. The Biden campaign's internal polling this past summer said Trump would win 400 electoral college votes. They talk about being members of the reality-based community, but Democratic leadership failed us horribly by not paying attention to things they actually knew, never mind learning things they didn't already know.
I ticked pretty much all of that. The only real caveat I have is this. It does strike me as possible that an understandable respect for and loyalty to Joe Biden got in the way. The effect of that loyalty also tied Kamala Harris's hands to some extent in the campaigning. That was decent but not wise. She needed a year and got a hundred days.
US - I hit the "a" instead of the capitalization key.
I just don't take the view you do about "understandable respect for and loyalty to Joe Biden." We've had all this nice rhetoric from the Democrats about putting the country ahead of other things, all this criticism of Trump making loyalty his litmus test. But Biden's advisors didn't put the country first, and neither did he. I find it in no way admirable, and understandable only if I think they are short-sighted to the utmost degree.
I believe people who were close to Biden saw a man who occasionally misspoke but is still in command of his faculties. The media, while routinely sanewashing Trump, reported a man who continually misspoke.
I just don't take the view you do about "understandable respect for and loyalty to Joe Biden." We've had all this nice rhetoric from the Democrats about putting the country ahead of other things, all this criticism of Trump making loyalty his litmus test. But Biden's advisors didn't put the country first, and neither did he. I find it in no way admirable, and understandable only if I think they are short-sighted to the utmost degree.
There's an interview with some of her campaign staff, and one of her advisors (Stephanie Cutter) says something like "We were trying to tell a story and give the impression that she was different without pointing to a specific issue". Firstly, this is the kind of thing that results in messaging people find very slippery, but it's couched in terms of loyalty, not wanting to make a break from the administration and the fear it would become the story as people from inside the administration went to the press. All of which comes across very badly and speaks to a deep dysfunction where fairly minor reputational issues are put ahead actually winning an election against a putative "existential threat to democracy".
Fair enough. Whether loyalty or inertia, it got in the way.
I do wonder what would have happened if Biden had decided not to seek re-election before the primaries. Harris was not a certainty to win the candidacy. We'll never know!
For my mental health, I have decided to go with denial. I have stopped watching the nightly news; it is much less heart-wrenching to just read the paper. I skip anything about him other than a headline. I refuse to talk about his administration and will do so in the future. I am not changing how I live, and I will continue to hang out with good and kind people and my family. I am grateful to live in a blue state. I am still on the ship thread as it is small bites of what is going on.
To the thread title, learn to tell a much better story than Trump to the overwhelming majority of 'hard working Americans' that brought him back with a clean sweep trifecta. I suspect that there isn't one, and that he, his narrative, just has to fail all by itself. Not likely. Nor his successor's, Vance's. At least for one term. Incumbents just have to accumulate demerits, like the Tories here. It took 14 f...... years.
I understand better now Ruth’s concerns about what will be left when the incoming administration has had its way.
And this is no longer just about the administration. Nor the nature of many of Trump’s appointments. A vindictive triumphalism has been let loose amongst the MAGA faithful. And it continues to be whipped up by some key players in the Trump leadership.
Pres. Biden has pardoned his son, Hunter. I guess this marks the official start of the "cutting bait" portion of his term. The ways in which Republicans handled the Hunter Biden stuff were atrocious, but the optics of this still look bad.
Hmmm. It doesn't seem a super-great feature of monarchy to retain...
Perhaps not, but for the purpose of the US adopting it from the British system, the question would have been how it was perceived in the 1780s. The prevailing view appears to have been that there is value in the possibility of the executive having the power to pardon.
Hmmm. It doesn't seem a super-great feature of monarchy to retain...
Perhaps not, but for the purpose of the US adopting it from the British system, the question would have been how it was perceived in the 1780s. The prevailing view appears to have been that there is value in the possibility of the executive having the power to pardon.
And I suppose it sticks around because nobody wants to be the first presidential candidate to announce that he will put an end to the pardoning of political donors.
Hmmm. It doesn't seem a super-great feature of monarchy to retain...
I think it's arguable that, up until Trump, the modest potential for corruption was outweighed by the need to be able to have a check on unjust punishments. If the US system were functioning correctly abuse of the pardon power would prompt impeachment. I kind of wonder whether the power move by Democrats now would be to propose impeaching Biden, and dare Republicans to go on record that abuse of the pardon power is grounds for removal from office, but then it's not like Republicans are in any way bound by consistency, principle, or honour so it would hardly matter what they were on record doing or saying.
Hmmm. It doesn't seem a super-great feature of monarchy to retain...
I think it's arguable that, up until Trump, the modest potential for corruption was outweighed by the need to be able to have a check on unjust punishments.
But there are other ways to do that. You could have a non-partisan committee deciding which applicanta deserve a pardon. For example.
At the very least you could require approval by perhaps 2/3 of both houses of Congress for a pardon. This would enable obvious miscarriages of justice, recognised by all, to be righted, but not at the whim of a President.
Hmmm. It doesn't seem a super-great feature of monarchy to retain...
Perhaps not, but for the purpose of the US adopting it from the British system, the question would have been how it was perceived in the 1780s. The prevailing view appears to have been that there is value in the possibility of the executive having the power to pardon.
And I suppose it sticks around because nobody wants to be the first presidential candidate to announce that he will put an end to the pardoning of political donors.
Well, the strict answer would be it sticks around because it’s in the Constitution, so it’s not easy to take out or alter. And fwiw, many left-leaning legal groups think the pardon power (at the federal and the state level) is important and should be used more often to counter the effects of systemic racism and other problems in the justice system.
Hmmm. It doesn't seem a super-great feature of monarchy to retain...
Perhaps not, but for the purpose of the US adopting it from the British system, the question would have been how it was perceived in the 1780s. The prevailing view appears to have been that there is value in the possibility of the executive having the power to pardon.
And I suppose it sticks around because nobody wants to be the first presidential candidate to announce that he will put an end to the pardoning of political donors.
Well, the strict answer would be it sticks around because it’s in the Constitution, so it’s not easy to take out or alter. And fwiw, many left-leaning legal groups think the pardon power (at the federal and the state level) is important and should be used more often to counter the effects of systemic racism and other problems in the justice system.
At the very least you could require approval by perhaps 2/3 of both houses of Congress for a pardon. This would enable obvious miscarriages of justice, recognised by all, to be righted, but not at the whim of a President.
That would mean almost no one would ever be pardoned, because almost nothing can get that kind of majority in Congress.
A lot of Presidential pardons in the past (and today, though not of Hunter Biden) were of people who had already served their sentences. It gives them a clean slate (a criminal record for even a minor offense can ruin a person's life in many states) and recognizes what they have accomplished since their conviction. It is not necessarily a declaration of innocence.
Presidents also have the power to commute sentences (leave a conviction in place but release someone from prison, for example). Obama did this for Chelsea Manning.
Clinton pardoned his brother Roger long after he had served his drug sentence. More controversial was his pardon of Marc Rich, the husband of a major donor who had fled to Switzerland, for tax evasion.
What is particularly upsetting is that the most famous and infamous pardons (with the exception of Ford's pardon of Nixon), as well as the largest number of them, are usually done by lame duck presidents about to leave office after an election they either lost or did not run in.
Prior to Trump, just about everyone seeking a pardon, even someone the President knew, had to go through a quite detailed formal application process and could not just reach out to the president directly. I do not know if this happened for Hunter Biden.
I strongly agree that the type of pardon that both Hunter Biden and Nixon received, which not only covers what Hunter was convicted of (gun and tax charges) but anything else he might have done that was a federal crime up to a date that is just about now (or, for Nixon, when he was in office), is a gross miscarriage of justice. No one should be able to be pardoned of something they have not been tried and convicted of. This is the kind of pardon Matt Gaetz was begging Trump for at the end of his first term (and did not receive, although it looks like he may not have needed it ).
At the very least you could require approval by perhaps 2/3 of both houses of Congress for a pardon. This would enable obvious miscarriages of justice, recognised by all, to be righted, but not at the whim of a President.
I'd still prefer it be handled by a non-partisan commission, but the congressional route WOULD have the effect of publicizing the various cases for a pardon. Even if some congressmen vote according to polling of their constituents, that at least gives you more of an open and adversarial system than just the prez granting pardons on a whim.
But, God almighty. Imagine you're a Democrat getting a zillion phone calls from angry constituents saying they'll vote you out if you pardon Hunter Biden. Then later at a fundraiser...
"Hey, Joe, good to see ya again. Great party, eh? Hey, sorry about my vote on the pardon, but, uh, not much I could do. You shoulda heard the phone calls I was gettin'. Say hi to the family for me."
At the very least you could require approval by perhaps 2/3 of both houses of Congress for a pardon. This would enable obvious miscarriages of justice, recognised by all, to be righted, but not at the whim of a President.
That would mean almost no one would ever be pardoned, because almost nothing can get that kind of majority in Congress.
This was more or less Alexander Hamilton's argument in Federalist 74.
Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind. On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.
Prior to Trump, just about everyone seeking a pardon, even someone the President knew, had to go through a quite detailed formal application process and could not just reach out to the president directly.
That's a fairly narrow historical view which seems to project the modern process back through history. The Office of the Pardon Attorney only dates back to 1894, though precursor offices existed for a few decades prior. I don't know the exact process used by George Washington when he pardoned the participants in the Whiskey Rebellion (the first exercise of the presidential pardon power under the then-new U.S. Constitution), but I suspect it was a lot less formal than you describe.
I have to say, I rather suspect the whole reason for doing it--that is, what pushed him over the edge--was worrying about what the incoming administration would do to his son. I truly cannot blame him, under the circumstances--I'd probably do just the same (and then resign with an apology to the American public, leaving what remains of the presidency to Harris, with some statement indicating why I'd done both things.)
I have to say, I rather suspect the whole reason for doing it--that is, what pushed him over the edge--was worrying about what the incoming administration would do to his son. I truly cannot blame him, under the circumstances--I'd probably do just the same (and then resign with an apology to the American public, leaving what remains of the presidency to Harris, with some statement indicating why I'd done both things.)
Given that the Hunter Biden prosecution was a politically motivated abuse of prosecutorial discretion it seems like exactly the kind of miscarriage of justice that the pardon power was intended to correct. I don't see why an apology or resignation would be necessary for using your Constitutional powers to do the right thing.
I was thinking primarily of minimizing the amount of political hay certain individuals will make out of it. Saying outright "I'm afraid for the safety of my son under the incoming vindictive asshole" (okay, pretty-up the langauge, but still) "and yet I realize that quite a few (too-innocent-to-live) people are going to find this action shocking; therefore I am resigning" (the last lame duck month of this presidency, and incidentally, giving the U.S. its first female president, not to mention depriving Trump of the pleasure of a direct hand-off from the man who beat him in the last election, AND depriving him of the news spotlight for a couple-three weeks or so. Also fucking up the stationery he's no doubt ordered already, with a bit "47" on it...).
I was thinking primarily of minimizing the amount of political hay certain individuals will make out of it. Saying outright "I'm afraid for the safety of my son under the incoming vindictive asshole" (okay, pretty-up the langauge, but still) "and yet I realize that quite a few (too-innocent-to-live) people are going to find this action shocking; therefore I am resigning".
My guess is that the people who will care about the Hunter Biden pardon in 2028 (to pick a future year totally at random) will consist entirely of the friends and family of Hunter Biden. I think it's long past the time we stop pretending that the perpetual right wing grievance machine is operating in good faith.
Trump is clearly intending to pardon all convicted of offences during the Jan 6 attempted insurrection. Over the past four years his consistent thought has been that he could not possibly have lost to Joe Biden therefore the election must have been stolen. Retribution is on its way for anyone who thought different, especially the Jan 6 House Committee. That's what the Trump selections tell us.
I think the Biden pardon was justified. And given the clear intent on vengeance I'm not surprised he made it extensive. But he cannot pardon the others in the firing line because they haven't been convicted of anything.
Hmmm. It doesn't seem a super-great feature of monarchy to retain...
Actually, my former son in law got a pardon from Queen Elizabeth.
When he first came to the United States, E "borrowed" a car without permission. Since this was a first offense, he got probation. But this prevented him from getting a green card, so after a few years, he hired a lawyer to get it expunged from the American record.
But it did not get expunged from Interpol. This prevented him from entering Canada, especially after 9/11. He lives practically on the border with Canada, and it was easier for him to fly out of Vancouver to the Philippines than through SEATAC. For the longest time, if he went through SEATAC he would have to fly to San Francisco to get a connecting flight to the Philippines. He had to apply to the British Home Office to get a pardon from Elizabeth. He had to prove he had a exemplary character.
Now, you would think if you got a pardon from the Queen, you would expect some type of official document with her majesty's signature. But it was none of that. Just a simple email, saying he was officially pardoned.
He still carries that email with him; and, every time he crosses into Canada, he has to show that email at the border. I think there is a code in the email they enter in a computer to verify the pardon.
I remember after the Viet Nam War, it was Fordthat offered clemency for all the draft dodgers who fled to Canada or elsewhere. Carter later granted unconditional pardon to them.
Many times, if a deserter went over to the enemy's side but then wants to return home, they could get pardons after being formally convicted in a military court.
Just recently, after congress allowed for LBGTQ members in the military, many veterans who had been discharged because of their sexuality have been able to receive pardons. Some even returned to the military to complete their careers.
Just some examples of how pardons have been used in the military.
But he cannot pardon the others in the firing line because they haven't been convicted of anything.
Ford’s pardon of Nixon says otherwise.
Yes it does. Rightly or wrongly, I’ve always thought of it as a dubious one-off. Probably never to be repeated.
Though there elements of it in Hunter Biden’s pardon. I think they might amount to “and anything else”.
Well, everything else is becoming polarised and unprecedented. So I suppose Joe Biden could go down that road in his pardons on leaving office. I think Trump has a pretty big hit list. It might depend on the extent to which the vindictive agenda develops more teeth.
Another idea about what we should do in the wake of the election: my partner suggested today that we stock up on non-perishables in anticipation of potential civil unrest following the inauguration, pointing out that Trump really hates California. I've been thinking of things we might want to buy in advance of new tariffs, but it hadn't occurred to me that we ought to be prepared to not leave the apartment for a little while. It seems unlikely we'll face this, but it's also hard to know what fears are legitimate these days.
Well, some fears are obviously legitimate; Trump's enemies list is pretty clear.
…. it's also hard to know what fears are legitimate these days.
I think that’s also true in the UK, Ruth.
It took a while to get over the fact that Trump won. And comfortably. But I think there are legitimate concerns over here about potential damage to both NATO and European economies. He has the power to destabilise
a number of democracies, some of which are already pretty wobbly.
Mark Rylance is playing Thomas Cromwell again in a further series based on Hilary Mantel’s brilliant historical novels (Wolf Hall et al). So we are being treated once again to a portrayal of a vain and variable monarch (Henry VIII) and the challenges facing his court.
It’s marvellous fictionalised history and Mark Rylance is absolutely mesmerising. But in all that, it raised in my mind the same thought you have had. What is there to fear from the actions of a vain and variable ruler?
The answer would appear to be “just about anything really”.
Yes, in the UK the Royal Pardon is used to rectify blatant mistakes and miscarriages of justice without the expense, trouble and embarrassment of an appeal. In my time as a public servant I have occasionally had to set the procedure in motion.
Comments
Hard to say if she was always this way or it's a more recent development. It probably didn't come up much during her City Council days, but as far back as 2015 she was parroting Kremlin talking points on Syria so that goes back at least as far as her days on the DNC (and in Congress).
And the Democrats have been abysmal at listening. Polls were telling them the majority of Democratic voters thought Biden was too old months before he dropped out. The Biden campaign's internal polling this past summer said Trump would win 400 electoral college votes. They talk about being members of the reality-based community, but Democratic leadership failed us horribly by not paying attention to things they actually knew, never mind learning things they didn't already know.
Now, if the national party can tap into the messages that worked in the state races, there may be a comeback on the horizon.
What worked in Wisconsin was eliminating the state's absurd gerrymander. I'm not sure that scales up to a national level or has any message behind it other than "gerrymandering is undemocratic".
The way to do this effectively is to get enough states to sign up to the National Popular Vote Compact. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
50%+1 of the electoral college votes, and you have a president functionally elected by national popular vote, without the need to amend the US constitution.
I ticked pretty much all of that. The only real caveat I have is this. It does strike me as possible that an understandable respect for and loyalty to Joe Biden got in the way. The effect of that loyalty also tied Kamala Harris's hands to some extent in the campaigning. That was decent but not wise. She needed a year and got a hundred days.
Uas? USA I presume? And the sacrifice is letting Trump win?
I just don't take the view you do about "understandable respect for and loyalty to Joe Biden." We've had all this nice rhetoric from the Democrats about putting the country ahead of other things, all this criticism of Trump making loyalty his litmus test. But Biden's advisors didn't put the country first, and neither did he. I find it in no way admirable, and understandable only if I think they are short-sighted to the utmost degree.
There's an interview with some of her campaign staff, and one of her advisors (Stephanie Cutter) says something like "We were trying to tell a story and give the impression that she was different without pointing to a specific issue". Firstly, this is the kind of thing that results in messaging people find very slippery, but it's couched in terms of loyalty, not wanting to make a break from the administration and the fear it would become the story as people from inside the administration went to the press. All of which comes across very badly and speaks to a deep dysfunction where fairly minor reputational issues are put ahead actually winning an election against a putative "existential threat to democracy".
I do wonder what would have happened if Biden had decided not to seek re-election before the primaries. Harris was not a certainty to win the candidacy. We'll never know!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_OK_to_Be_Angry_About_Capitalism
And this is no longer just about the administration. Nor the nature of many of Trump’s appointments. A vindictive triumphalism has been let loose amongst the MAGA faithful. And it continues to be whipped up by some key players in the Trump leadership.
They are the Masters now.
And I suppose it sticks around because nobody wants to be the first presidential candidate to announce that he will put an end to the pardoning of political donors.
I think it's arguable that, up until Trump, the modest potential for corruption was outweighed by the need to be able to have a check on unjust punishments. If the US system were functioning correctly abuse of the pardon power would prompt impeachment. I kind of wonder whether the power move by Democrats now would be to propose impeaching Biden, and dare Republicans to go on record that abuse of the pardon power is grounds for removal from office, but then it's not like Republicans are in any way bound by consistency, principle, or honour so it would hardly matter what they were on record doing or saying.
But there are other ways to do that. You could have a non-partisan committee deciding which applicanta deserve a pardon. For example.
Thanks.
That would mean almost no one would ever be pardoned, because almost nothing can get that kind of majority in Congress.
A lot of Presidential pardons in the past (and today, though not of Hunter Biden) were of people who had already served their sentences. It gives them a clean slate (a criminal record for even a minor offense can ruin a person's life in many states) and recognizes what they have accomplished since their conviction. It is not necessarily a declaration of innocence.
Presidents also have the power to commute sentences (leave a conviction in place but release someone from prison, for example). Obama did this for Chelsea Manning.
Clinton pardoned his brother Roger long after he had served his drug sentence. More controversial was his pardon of Marc Rich, the husband of a major donor who had fled to Switzerland, for tax evasion.
What is particularly upsetting is that the most famous and infamous pardons (with the exception of Ford's pardon of Nixon), as well as the largest number of them, are usually done by lame duck presidents about to leave office after an election they either lost or did not run in.
Prior to Trump, just about everyone seeking a pardon, even someone the President knew, had to go through a quite detailed formal application process and could not just reach out to the president directly. I do not know if this happened for Hunter Biden.
I strongly agree that the type of pardon that both Hunter Biden and Nixon received, which not only covers what Hunter was convicted of (gun and tax charges) but anything else he might have done that was a federal crime up to a date that is just about now (or, for Nixon, when he was in office), is a gross miscarriage of justice. No one should be able to be pardoned of something they have not been tried and convicted of. This is the kind of pardon Matt Gaetz was begging Trump for at the end of his first term (and did not receive, although it looks like he may not have needed it
I'd still prefer it be handled by a non-partisan commission, but the congressional route WOULD have the effect of publicizing the various cases for a pardon. Even if some congressmen vote according to polling of their constituents, that at least gives you more of an open and adversarial system than just the prez granting pardons on a whim.
But, God almighty. Imagine you're a Democrat getting a zillion phone calls from angry constituents saying they'll vote you out if you pardon Hunter Biden. Then later at a fundraiser...
"Hey, Joe, good to see ya again. Great party, eh? Hey, sorry about my vote on the pardon, but, uh, not much I could do. You shoulda heard the phone calls I was gettin'. Say hi to the family for me."
This was more or less Alexander Hamilton's argument in Federalist 74.
That's a fairly narrow historical view which seems to project the modern process back through history. The Office of the Pardon Attorney only dates back to 1894, though precursor offices existed for a few decades prior. I don't know the exact process used by George Washington when he pardoned the participants in the Whiskey Rebellion (the first exercise of the presidential pardon power under the then-new U.S. Constitution), but I suspect it was a lot less formal than you describe.
Given that the Hunter Biden prosecution was a politically motivated abuse of prosecutorial discretion it seems like exactly the kind of miscarriage of justice that the pardon power was intended to correct. I don't see why an apology or resignation would be necessary for using your Constitutional powers to do the right thing.
My guess is that the people who will care about the Hunter Biden pardon in 2028 (to pick a future year totally at random) will consist entirely of the friends and family of Hunter Biden. I think it's long past the time we stop pretending that the perpetual right wing grievance machine is operating in good faith.
Trump is clearly intending to pardon all convicted of offences during the Jan 6 attempted insurrection. Over the past four years his consistent thought has been that he could not possibly have lost to Joe Biden therefore the election must have been stolen. Retribution is on its way for anyone who thought different, especially the Jan 6 House Committee. That's what the Trump selections tell us.
I think the Biden pardon was justified. And given the clear intent on vengeance I'm not surprised he made it extensive. But he cannot pardon the others in the firing line because they haven't been convicted of anything.
Actually, my former son in law got a pardon from Queen Elizabeth.
When he first came to the United States, E "borrowed" a car without permission. Since this was a first offense, he got probation. But this prevented him from getting a green card, so after a few years, he hired a lawyer to get it expunged from the American record.
But it did not get expunged from Interpol. This prevented him from entering Canada, especially after 9/11. He lives practically on the border with Canada, and it was easier for him to fly out of Vancouver to the Philippines than through SEATAC. For the longest time, if he went through SEATAC he would have to fly to San Francisco to get a connecting flight to the Philippines. He had to apply to the British Home Office to get a pardon from Elizabeth. He had to prove he had a exemplary character.
Now, you would think if you got a pardon from the Queen, you would expect some type of official document with her majesty's signature. But it was none of that. Just a simple email, saying he was officially pardoned.
He still carries that email with him; and, every time he crosses into Canada, he has to show that email at the border. I think there is a code in the email they enter in a computer to verify the pardon.
I remember after the Viet Nam War, it was Fordthat offered clemency for all the draft dodgers who fled to Canada or elsewhere. Carter later granted unconditional pardon to them.
Many times, if a deserter went over to the enemy's side but then wants to return home, they could get pardons after being formally convicted in a military court.
Just recently, after congress allowed for LBGTQ members in the military, many veterans who had been discharged because of their sexuality have been able to receive pardons. Some even returned to the military to complete their careers.
Just some examples of how pardons have been used in the military.
Yes it does. Rightly or wrongly, I’ve always thought of it as a dubious one-off. Probably never to be repeated.
Though there elements of it in Hunter Biden’s pardon. I think they might amount to “and anything else”.
Well, everything else is becoming polarised and unprecedented. So I suppose Joe Biden could go down that road in his pardons on leaving office. I think Trump has a pretty big hit list. It might depend on the extent to which the vindictive agenda develops more teeth.
Watch this space.
Another idea about what we should do in the wake of the election: my partner suggested today that we stock up on non-perishables in anticipation of potential civil unrest following the inauguration, pointing out that Trump really hates California. I've been thinking of things we might want to buy in advance of new tariffs, but it hadn't occurred to me that we ought to be prepared to not leave the apartment for a little while. It seems unlikely we'll face this, but it's also hard to know what fears are legitimate these days.
Well, some fears are obviously legitimate; Trump's enemies list is pretty clear.
Not to mention all the branded merchandise with that number on it that he's probably getting ready to market.
It took a while to get over the fact that Trump won. And comfortably. But I think there are legitimate concerns over here about potential damage to both NATO and European economies. He has the power to destabilise
a number of democracies, some of which are already pretty wobbly.
Mark Rylance is playing Thomas Cromwell again in a further series based on Hilary Mantel’s brilliant historical novels (Wolf Hall et al). So we are being treated once again to a portrayal of a vain and variable monarch (Henry VIII) and the challenges facing his court.
It’s marvellous fictionalised history and Mark Rylance is absolutely mesmerising. But in all that, it raised in my mind the same thought you have had. What is there to fear from the actions of a vain and variable ruler?
The answer would appear to be “just about anything really”.