We start with two questions, one easy and one hard. The easy one: Is it likely that Donald Trump’s administration will abuse federal power to harass antagonists like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney?
He *could* short-circuit the Trump Justice Department’s forthcoming *jihad* against Cheney by preemptively pardoning her for any federal crime she might have committed since—well, pick a year. Or he could keep the pardon in his pocket, not wanting to set a new norm of mass pardons for political allies, and dare Kash Patel to do his worst.
We Dispatchers are a norms-y bunch, and so the thought of Biden granting sweeping clemency to Trump critics various and sundry was received coolly among our staff. “The idea that presidents should be able to issue blanket pardons *preemptively* on the way out the door is some of the rankest dumbassery that has come down the pike in a long time,” Jonah Goldberg [complained](https://x.com/JonahDispatch/status/1864479282845630498).
Sarah Isgur—who appears on [Patel’s enemies list](https://x.com/Timodc/status/1863620081873244259)!—was [likewise aghast](https://x.com/whignewtons/status/1864471045933076823): “Does nobody remember the whole debate we just had on presidential immunity?! We were told how dangerous any immunity would be! Even SCOTUS limited immunity to core official acts. So now [the] Biden team [is] doing blanket immunity—official and unofficial acts—for themselves?”
Not entirely for “themselves,” unless you consider Liz Cheney a member of the Biden administration. But the point stands.
Even so, Democrats from the White House to [Congress](https://boyle.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-brendan-boyle-calls-president-biden-issue-blanket-pardon) to the [*New York Times* op-ed page](https://x.com/tomselliott/status/1864681055833186393) are warming up to a pardon-palooza before Biden exits. “This is no hypothetical threat,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania warned of Patel’s revanchist crusade. “If we’re serious about stopping Trump’s authoritarian ambitions, we need to act decisively and use every tool at our disposal. Norms and traditions alone won’t stop him—Trump has shown time and again that he’s willing to ignore them to consolidate power and punish his opponents. The time for cautious restraint is over.”
Is he right? *Is* the time for cautious restraint over?
I lean instinctively toward Jonah’s and Sarah’s position but, I confess, I’m having trouble rationalizing doing so. People like Cheney and Romney defended America’s constitutional order at great cost to themselves and may be punished for it by a proto-fascist government. Democrats momentarily have the power to spare them from the ordeal. I’m to believe that the optimal outcome here is for them to stand by and do … nothing?
In an America that plainly no longer gives a rip about “norms”?
Safe_Presentation962 on
I think he should offer it to all of Trump’s political adversaries (assuming they haven’t actually committed serious crimes) and they can take it if they want.
2 Comments
We start with two questions, one easy and one hard. The easy one: Is it likely that Donald Trump’s administration will abuse federal power to harass antagonists like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney?
[You betcha](https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/trump-liz-cheney-military-tribunal/index.html). Romney has been candid about his [anxiety at the prospect](https://boingboing.net/2024/09/25/romney-fears-trumps-revenge-how-am-i-going-to-protect-25-grandkids.html). The whole reason [grifting children’s-book author Kash Patel](https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/kash-patel-fbi-trump-maga-merchandise-b2657380.html) has been tapped to lead the FBI, in fact, is his [obsequious zeal for Trump’s “retribution” project](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/03/patel-deep-state-trump-retribution/).
Now, the hard one: What should be done about it?
On Wednesday, *Politico* reporter Jonathan Martin [confirmed](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/04/biden-white-house-pardons-00192610) what %5Bothers%5D(https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-next-biden-pardons-may-matter) already assumed, that a “vigorous internal debate” has begun among Joe Biden’s senior aides over whether to issue pardons to MAGA enemies like Cheney, Sen.-elect Adam Schiff, and Dr. Anthony Fauci. The president himself supposedly hasn’t been looped in yet, preoccupied as he is with making sure that [his sleazy son pays no price](https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/boilingfrogs/leaning-into-nihilism/) for the bona fide federal crimes he’s committed. But soon Biden will have a decision to make.
He *could* short-circuit the Trump Justice Department’s forthcoming *jihad* against Cheney by preemptively pardoning her for any federal crime she might have committed since—well, pick a year. Or he could keep the pardon in his pocket, not wanting to set a new norm of mass pardons for political allies, and dare Kash Patel to do his worst.
We Dispatchers are a norms-y bunch, and so the thought of Biden granting sweeping clemency to Trump critics various and sundry was received coolly among our staff. “The idea that presidents should be able to issue blanket pardons *preemptively* on the way out the door is some of the rankest dumbassery that has come down the pike in a long time,” Jonah Goldberg [complained](https://x.com/JonahDispatch/status/1864479282845630498).
Sarah Isgur—who appears on [Patel’s enemies list](https://x.com/Timodc/status/1863620081873244259)!—was [likewise aghast](https://x.com/whignewtons/status/1864471045933076823): “Does nobody remember the whole debate we just had on presidential immunity?! We were told how dangerous any immunity would be! Even SCOTUS limited immunity to core official acts. So now [the] Biden team [is] doing blanket immunity—official and unofficial acts—for themselves?”
Not entirely for “themselves,” unless you consider Liz Cheney a member of the Biden administration. But the point stands.
Even so, Democrats from the White House to [Congress](https://boyle.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-brendan-boyle-calls-president-biden-issue-blanket-pardon) to the [*New York Times* op-ed page](https://x.com/tomselliott/status/1864681055833186393) are warming up to a pardon-palooza before Biden exits. “This is no hypothetical threat,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania warned of Patel’s revanchist crusade. “If we’re serious about stopping Trump’s authoritarian ambitions, we need to act decisively and use every tool at our disposal. Norms and traditions alone won’t stop him—Trump has shown time and again that he’s willing to ignore them to consolidate power and punish his opponents. The time for cautious restraint is over.”
Is he right? *Is* the time for cautious restraint over?
I lean instinctively toward Jonah’s and Sarah’s position but, I confess, I’m having trouble rationalizing doing so. People like Cheney and Romney defended America’s constitutional order at great cost to themselves and may be punished for it by a proto-fascist government. Democrats momentarily have the power to spare them from the ordeal. I’m to believe that the optimal outcome here is for them to stand by and do … nothing?
In an America that plainly no longer gives a rip about “norms”?
I think he should offer it to all of Trump’s political adversaries (assuming they haven’t actually committed serious crimes) and they can take it if they want.