Republicans complaining about Biden pardons have questionable pardons of their own

The blogosphere is abuzz following President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, with criticism ranging from regret to denunciation.

There is much to criticize, given Biden’s previous vows not to intervene in the matter. But the facts change.

The prosecution, filed around the same time as Jack Smith’s lawsuit against Donald Trump, was excessive — demanding prison time for charges that would have warranted a fine at most for anyone other than the president’s son.

More importantly, however, was Trump’s promise earlier this week to appoint Kash Patel as director of the FBI – whom he had considered appointing after the 2020 election, but before the attempted insurrection on the 6 January, a move blocked by then-Attorney General William Barr.

Trump’s latest decision is curious. The position of FBI director is not vacant, unlike Cabinet positions. Trump appointee Christopher Wray served in the Biden administration and has a 10-year term through 2027.

Trump, after taking office, should fire Wray without cause and then ask the Senate to confirm Patel. This is a double measure likely to give pause even to Senate Republicans, who are also eager to confirm nominations, even those with few qualifications.

Patel, unlike Wray, is a die-hard Trump loyalist. Biden’s concern to avoid further harassment and defamation of his son is understandable.

And if pardons are in question, we should consider the one Trump granted on December 23, 2020 to his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner.

Charles Kushner served two years in federal prison for numerous charges, including tax evasion and witness tampering. The latter involved him hiring a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, who Kushner feared would tell prosecutors.

He sent the resulting videotape to his sister, Republican U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, appointed by President George W. Bush, to call it “one of the most repugnant and disgusting crimes” he had ever committed. never prosecuted.

Yet Kushner is Trump’s choice for ambassador to France. This fits terribly with the historic role ushered in by founder Benjamin Franklin, who, as minister to France, garnered vital support enabling revolutionaries to defeat the forces of King George III and establish our independence.

Kushner’s pardon, and that of other loyalists like Paul Manafort, Dinesh D’Souza, Roger Stone and Steve Bannon, does not fit the usual understanding of pardons, which require contrition and acceptance of responsibility, as Hunter did Biden.

Trump continues to explode the boundaries, written and unwritten, that govern political life and the main question is how soon resistance will begin and how effective it will be.

How we got here begins with a new pardon granted by President Gerald Ford in 1974 to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for any crimes he may have committed during the Watergate scandal that sent many to prison. his main collaborators.

The pardon confirms a previous opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president could not be indicted while in office – a conclusion that was not tested in any court until Trump’s first term, when it was treated as a sacred ordinance by the United States Supreme Court.

The next crisis in presidential leadership occurred in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan surprisingly supplied weapons to our archenemy, Iran, allowing it to avoid defeat by Iraq. Profits went to Nicaraguan insurgents, aid that Congress had banned.

Reagan aides who were convicted also received pardons from George HW Bush.

Now there is Donald Trump, who effectively cleared dozens of federal charges by regaining the White House on November 5.

He might not have succeeded without the strong support of Chief Justice John Roberts, who initially sided with the Court’s liberals in hearing Trump’s appeal of the Jan. 6 charges, then joined his fellow conservatives in returning the case of Trump v. United States in July.

It is perhaps the most sweeping and perverse decision of the High Court since the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857, which authorized slavery throughout the country and helped spark the Civil War.

Not only does the new ruling grant “absolute immunity” for official actions, it also exempts most unofficial acts from legal scrutiny. This is despite the Constitution’s absence of any mention of immunity and its specific authorization of both political sanctions through impeachment and legal sanctions of the penal code.

There are gaping holes in the constitutional fabric as Trump plots his comeback. Yet most presidents exaggerate, and Trump may have already done so.

Much depends on the willingness of independent senators like Maine’s Angus King and Susan Collins to fulfill their own constitutional role in confirmation.

The biggest issue will depend on new Senate Majority Leader John Thune — not Trump’s pick — deciding how and when to put the nominations up for a vote in January.

As was written long ago, the world is watching.

Douglas Rooks has been an editor, columnist and journalist in Maine for 40 years. He is the author of four books, the most recent of which is a biography of U.S. Chief Justice Melville Fuller, and invites commentary on [email protected].

This article originally appeared on the Portsmouth Herald: Rooks: Biden is nothing compared to GOP on questionable pardons.