No. No. No!
2 Likes
Jason Willick is hoping to make a name for himself
1 Like
I was around then – young, but paying attention. There were those who believed that Ford’s pardon of Nixon cost him the White House in 1976. I suspect it was more that the nation was sick of Republican corruption in general and Ford would have lost anyway. The pardon only added to the perception of corruption.
As for Biden pardoning Trump? No way that’ll happen. Biden’s stated reason for running for President was because of the speech Trump gave after the racist Charlottesville rally. Biden knows Trump deserves any punishment meted out to him.
5 Likes
It’s as simple as they think it’ll go the other way too.
Biden almost certainly is going to be impeached multiple times if the republicans take the senate and house. Probably weekly. He won’t be convicted or removed, but that’s what they’re going to do. And they’ll probably do hearings and investigations after he leaves too, now that “they did it to us.” I’d wager the “pardon Trump” cries is basically a quid pro quo for them to not go after Joe or Hunter or anyone.
2 Likes
I think they feel compelled to be balanced by giving democrats and people who want to burn democracy while riding high on horse tranquilizers and hating on LGBTQ and POC equal access, since both sides deserve equal air time.
11 Likes
Oh, more than one.
Let’s see, in addition to this new stooge they’ve got, there’s:
Hugh Hewitt
Kathleen Parker
Charles Krauthammer (deceased)
And of course, the eternal, infernal:
George F(ucking) Will
Interesting personal note; when I was in High School a fantastic teacher offered a course called “Current Events”. Everyone was assigned articles to read and report on while identifying things like bias, citations, etc. I was once assigned a piece by George F(ucking) Will. As I progressed past the first few paragraphs I became increasingly astonished at just how partisan and disconnected from reality he was. I was in no way the bleeding heart I am now, but was shocked at just how obviously far right his perspective was. It was the first time I really grokked partisan bias and he became the first writer I truly found disgusting. So thanks, I guess, asshole. Without you I wouldn’t have understood what a true hack writer sounded like until years later.
17 Likes
“Fuck Trump” as sang in the style of Down Town.
2 Likes
I’m sure that some pundits are basically PR flacks; but my impression is that the rot is more fundamental than just being bought by one side or the other:
Being a pundit is sort of like being a sports commentator: it demands that you simultaneously be breathlessly gripped by your subject matter for the entertainment of people who take it really seriously and of the implicit position that what you cover is fundamentally the raw material for punditry rather than first and foremost absolutely serious business.
The result is people who write about political malfeasance the way one would write about basketball fouling or violations of tackling safety rules or something: depending on which team is being cheered for the person responsible might be castigated for playing dirty or cheered for being unafraid to play hard; but the idea that there might be a line you can cross that would lead to gettitng led out in cuffs on assault charges is treated as essentially unthinkable: the contextual punishment ceiling is imagined to be getting kicked out of a game or, worst case, a season; not being guilty enough that losing your job is merely the beginning of your punishment.
4 Likes
One potential way would be to pardon him for something minor, perhaps something whose statute of limitations has already expired. Describe the offence for which he’s being pardoned in long, grandiose terms, long enough that he will TL;DR. Hand him the pardon and wait for him to start boasting about how he got away with X, Y, and Z thanks to his pardon … which doesn’t actually cover X, Y, or Z.
Then nail his ass to the wall for X, Y, and Z.
But pardoning him for the more serious offenses, like January 6th? HELL no.
3 Likes
17 Likes
Actually it does. One takes a pardon in lieu of a trial with the notion it means accepting guilt.
1 Like
With the obligatory disclaimer that I’m neither a lawyer or a legal expert, the Federal Rules of Evidence has a section that explicitly recognizes the existence of pardons “based on a finding of innocence.”
(c) Effect of a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if:
(1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a later crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or
(2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.
In other words there been a longstanding recognition that one role of the pardon process is to provide relief for innocent people who were wronged by the justice system. Presumably that could extend to innocent people who have every expectation that they are about to be wronged by the justice system.
So there’s no way that Trump or his allies would ever, ever concede that his acceptance of a pardon was evidence of his guilt.
7 Likes
So exactly what charge or guilty plea was Nixon accepting? Indictments and trials are specific.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
4 Likes
He has, just maybe not in the way he wanted.
I mean, unless he wanted to make the name Jason “Useful Idiot” Willick.
9 Likes
Biden should invite him to the WH (cuz, think of the ratings!) in the guise of giving or negotiating a pardon, then put him in handcuffs as soon as walks thru the door.
2 Likes
This whole “accepting a pardon” concept seems very fishy from the beginning. If the president pardons somebody, they get pardoned. It’s not a contract. The paper doesn’t need to be signed by multiple people.
5 Likes
You can deny a pardon. Multiple supreme court rulings have held that a pardon is a deed and the president does not have the authority to demand a person accept a deed. You reject a pardon simply by refusing it when it’s officially served to you.
God knows why one would do that, though.
… and here we are again—that just doesn’t make any sense.
A pardon is not a summons. There is no need to respond to it. The only reason for anybody to interact with a pardon is by citing it in court to make something else go away. Other than that it’s a non-event.
6 Likes
I have never wanted to punch someone harder. Shut your fucking mouth and never open it again, Willick. This is almost more disgusting to me than Trump himself.
5 Likes
And history has shown that it was a huge fucking mistake, that helped to get us in the exact shitswamp we are in.
7 Likes
