|
 |
If you enjoy this preview, I hope you’ll consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
For those who don’t have or want a Substack account, you can keep Off Message going with a donation. All support is appreciated, and donations of $75 or larger come with a comped annual subscription—all content unlocked and emailed to the address provided.
How To Deter "Look Forward Not Backward" Thinking
Inside the mailbag: Benghazi ... Brian Schatz ... Eric Swalwell
|
| |||||||||||||||
 |
Gary Paudler: Trump is reported to have promised pardons to all cooperating criminals. If I recall correctly, if one accepts a pardon, one is acknowledging guilt. If so, wouldn’t there be at least symbolic meaning to investigating, prosecuting and trying administration miscreants if only to attach “convicted fraudster/inside-trader/war criminal/whatever” to their name, in-perpetuity or longer? Mightn’t announcing that intention now have some minor deterrent effect?
Pardons are meant to be accepted, not just issued. Thus, ideally they’d only ever go to people who’d acknowledged guilt or wrongdoing at some point during their time in the criminal-justice system, or to people who’d been exonerated by evidence, but were never freed from custody, or never had their convictions overturned.
That way we could read every pardon issued to reflect atonement, or correct some form of injustice.
Alas, in practice, presidents have pardoned guilty people who’ve shown little to no remorse, and nothing has stopped presidents from issuing preemptive pardons to people who denied criminal wrongdoing. Most recently, Biden pardoned people on Trump’s enemies list, who almost surely did not commit any crimes. In their case, the thing being preempted was an abuse of power, the injustice being corrected was anticipated harassment by the Justice Department.
But the Ford to Nixon instance is most apt, because Nixon did commit crimes, only ever copped to “mistakes,” and got off scot-free.
So we should accept at the outset that Trump likely will pass out pardons like candy, to actual criminals, and it will create a meaningful impediment to a certain kind of accountability. I’d expect the recipients (particularly the MAGA made-men with tons of resources) to challenge any federal effort to even investigate their crimes, slowing DOJ efforts to charge unpardoned conspirators, or to compile evidence for posterity.
But all is not lost! Pardons don’t cover state offenses, and many federal corruption offenses violate sister statutes at the state level. Pardons can’t stop Congress or inspectors general or a post-Trump truth commission from investigating, and airing their findings. Pardons can’t stop disbarment proceedings. And Democrats should absolutely put Republicans on notice that all of it is coming for them.
No Not Me: it’s January 2027. The senate just went blue. What’s the reaction? My gut says the left professional class views this as a realignment. Meaning: no longer prioritizing institutional hardening: the voters will be (more likely) save us now. How do we guard against the complacency that many of the dem adjacent institutional forces will be paying to incentivize?
This is depressingly plausible. Some thoughts on deterrence:...