Sam_Stone, none of those mentioned being pardoned by previous democratic administrations were involved in criminal activities committed on the behalf of the president making the pardon.
And it is noticeable that your post ignored these pardons from Agent Orange:
Last month, in an unprecedented move, President Trump pardoned war crimes charges against three U.S. military service members. The decision provoked opposition from former military leaders and many veterans, but was applauded by some lawmakers and media.
The three men forgiven by the president — Lt. Clint Lorance, Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, and Chief Edward Gallagher — had committed or were accused of horrifying crimes. Lorance was serving a 19-year prison sentence for ordering the murder of two unarmed Afghan villagers. Platoon members who turned him in described Lorance as aggressive, ordering them to shoot indiscriminately at civilians in order to “make them afraid of us.” Golsteyn was set to go on trial next year for killing an unarmed Afghan man.
Gallagher was charged with shooting at civilians for sport, including an Iraqi school girl and an elderly man. Witnesses testified that he stabbed a wounded teenage captive multiple times and posed with his mutilated corpse. Eventually convicted on a minor count of bringing discredit to the armed forces, Gallagher was demoted one step. Overriding internal military processes, the president restored his rank.
President Trump’s intervention evinces a callous disregard for the lives of victims and survivors, the rule of law, and the military justice system. For him, it was irrelevant that the service members violated clearly established laws of war. The fact that they did so while wearing an American uniform made them beyond reproach. “We train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill!” he lamented on Twitter in October.
You found it notable that my post ignored something no one was talking about? Okay. I was bringing up examples of sketchy pardons from the past, and included both Republicans and Democrats. And I never disputed that Trump’s pardon was sketchy - just that other presidents have done the same thing. I mean, Clinton pardoned his own brother and one of the biggest financial criminals of all time, who fled rather than face justice.
If it helps you sleep, I will accept that Trump’s pardons are terrible. They just aren’t abnormal.
Hey, if you think what he did matches up with the biggest tax fraud in history, statutory rape, embezzlement, treason, terrorism and other crimes that have been pardoned through history, that’s fine I’m not responsible for your moral hierarchy.
Most of Clinton’s sketchy pardons were for people who had already served most or all of their sentences, some well in the past (like his brother). Those I have a hard time getting worked up about. Marc Rich’s pardon can’t be justified and I wouldn’t try.
Stone’s commutation means that he will entirely avoid punishment for crimes he committed on behalf of the President pardoning him. The only analogue I can come up with in recent years is Scooter Libby. Susan McDougal got a pardon in Clinton’s last minute flurry but she had served all of her sentence.
Stone is the central figure in the greatest scandals in U.S. history. Ames, Hanssen, the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss—none of them worked with a foreign intelligence service to help a candidate for president of the United States. Stone did. And now he will receive a commutation of his sentence from the president he served.
There’s a very clear message in this commutation, happening at this time, that I’m pretty sure does make it abnormal. It says: “Go ahead, you can break laws to help me–to help me get elected. Don’t worry about it, because I’ll take care of you.”
Image all those people working at this moment on Trump’s re-election, and what it communicates to them. It’s pretty obvious.
Technical question: Presidential pardons are un-appealable (and often unappealing) and irreversible. Is the same true of a commutation? Can a future president un-commute a commuted sentence?
I have no doubt that if someone kills Biden and Trump gets re-elected because of it, he will pardon or commute the sentence of the killer. And don’t even bother to say, “But he would never do that!” Every time someone has said that, Trump has gone on to do it. You’d probably say it “isn’t abnormal,” then, too.
What does playing stupid accomplish? You were flat out told the issue. It’s not about which crime is the most immoral. It’s about the fact Trump is doing this to protect himself from preosectution. This is a “The president is above the law” situation.
Also, I thought you were a conservative, not a Trump supporter. So why are you going out of your way to defend Trump? Don’t you want a proper conservative, and not a illiterate conman in office? Who doesn’t do stupid crap to spread a global pandemic in the country to your immediate south?