| ### "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington. ### |
The article describes the differences between President Biden's and President Trump's pardons. The author criticizes Biden's pardons for being politically motivated and benefiting his family and allies. The author also argues that Trump's pardons were granted to defendants who had been convicted or charged, unlike Biden's preemptive pardons.
On inauguration day, President Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of the approximately 1,550 defendants convicted for their involvement with the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. He also ordered DOJ to dismiss all other pending indictments. Most of them, about 900, were for non-violent misdemeanors such as trespass and disorderly conduct. He granted the clemency all at once, and did not begin with pardoning the non-violent misdemeanor defendants first and then examining the remaining defendants on a case-by-case basis as he and others previously had suggested.
Meanwhile, on the very same day, just 15 minutes before he left office, President Biden issued the last set of his own pardons. He granted them to members of his family, most notably his brothers, sister, and in-laws, as well as to members of his administration such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley, and even to political supporters like the congressional January 6 committee members. Biden's pardons followed thousands of pardons he issued this month to what he claimed were non-violent federal offenders and commutations of virtually all federal death penalties.
Many Democrats and media outlets have criticized Trump's mass clemency for the January 6 defendants, even as they casually ignored President Biden's. But let's put aside the hypocrisy for a moment to examine the real differences between the two sets of pardons, regardless of one's views of their merits.
First, Biden granted pardons and commutations to more than 8,000 individuals, which is more than any other modern president. Thousands of Biden's clemency grants were to serious criminals, including murderers, child killers, child abusers, and the biggest municipal embezzler in history, Rita Crundwell. Several of the grants benefitted well-connected Democrats. In both 2022 and 2024, Biden abused his pardon power to achieve mass sentencing reductions that Congress refused to pass by law. President Obama did the same thing when he issued mass commutations of drug sentences.
Second, it's obviously not principle but politics that drove Biden's pardons; Biden's post-election mass death row commutations did not follow his self-proclaimed opposition to the death penalty. He left three men on death row whose commutations would have politically harmed Democrats. He did not commute the sentences of Dzhokar Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon bomber), Dylann Roof (murderer of nine black churchgoers in Charleston), and Robert Bowers (murderer of 11 worshippers a synagogue in Squirrel Hill, PA). Biden's alleged opposition to the death penalty also did not prevent DOJ from filing capital murder charges against Luigi Mangione.
Third, President Biden needs to pardon his family, officials, and allies only because he fears the very lawfare that he invented. Biden's DOJ broke more than two centuries of history to prosecute a former president and the candidate of the major opposition political party. He is like an arsonist who demands more spending on fire departments. Because of his stated fear of retaliation, Biden pardoned his family and associates before prosecutors ever launched investigations. These pardons were to Biden's own benefit, as their reciipients are much less likely to disclose any information that directly implicate President Biden to the family's alleged "pay to play, 10 percent for the Big Guy" schemes.
Contrast that with Trump's clemency, which did not directly benefit him or his family, and covered defendants who were actually convicted or charged, unlike Biden's preemptive pardons that covered up to 10 years' worth of potential and actual criminal activity for his family and allies.
In Trump's case, almost all of the defendants had undergone arrest, trial, conviction, and punishment. If Trump had followed Biden's example, as all future presidents may, he would have issued blanket pardons for all of the January 6 defendants on January 7, 2021. But he did not, and instead allowed the criminal justice system to proceed first, measured the results, and then decided whether pardons were warranted.
Crucially, President Trump also went to the public for approval before he issued the pardons. Biden told the American people he would not pardon his son, Hunter, and then issued his grants after the voters had rejected the incumbent party. Trump, by contrast, repeatedly stated on the campaign trail his belief that the J6 defendants, particularly the non-violent ones, were treated much worse than regular suspects, suffering from long solitary confinement and unusually heavy jail sentences. Trump could have used Biden's own words to justify granting clemency to the J6 defendants, because they "do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions."
Trump also has solid legal precedent to grant clemency to those many defendants whom the Biden/Garland DOJ charged with "obstruction or impediment of an official proceeding." In June 2024, the Supreme Court in Fischer v. U.S. rejected the DOJ's misusing Sarbanes-Oxley and that charge, which built upon the Court's precedents in cases like McDonnelland Yates. The J6 clemency extended the Supreme Court's reading to those who had been convicted beforehand.
It's not accident that President Biden waited until after the election to issue his most controversial pardons. Indeed, he waited until the last 15 minutes before the inauguration. Biden hid them from the public and refused to answer any questions about them. Trump by contrast openly discussed granting clemency to the J6 defendants throughout the campaign and gave the American people a chance to decide. He granted clemency on his first day in office, not his last.
Democrats have resorted to pardons because they appear to expect lawfare to continue. DOJ released Jack Smith's special counsel J6 report even though Trump had won the election and DOJ could no longer pursue charges. It is even trying to release the special counsel report about the Florida classified documents case, even though Trump's co-defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Both President Trump and Attorney General–designate Pam Bondi are positioned to stop the lawfare, but only if the Democrats abjure their politicization of criminal justice. Lawfare can descend on Democrats as easily as on Republicans.
John Yoo is a distinguished visiting professor at the School of Civic Leadership and a senior research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, the Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. John Shu is a legal scholar and commentator who served in the administrations of Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
| ### "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington. ### |
 |
| Joao Lourenço et Emmanuel Macron, Paris, France |
Par Paul Kirarika
Le 16 Janvier 2025
Les dirigeants des Etats africains devraient avoir honte d'avouer au Monde entier qu'ils ne sont pas sûrs d'eux-mêmes et qu'ils ont encore des directives et ordres à recevoir de leurs anciens colonisateurs pour entreprendre quoi que ce soit. Les intellectuels et les faiseurs d'opinion africains devraient ouvrir les yeux à leurs peuples pour qu'ils se rendent compte de la façon dont ceux qu'ils ont placés à la tête de leurs pays les humilient en Occident surtout, d'où vient la fausse perception par le reste du Monde comme quoi les Africains surtout noirs sont les rebuts des autres peuples du Monde.
L'actualité en fournit un exemple caricatural.
Le 16 Janvier 2025, on a vu dans les médias un chef d'Etat africain qui s'apprête à présider l'Union Africaine (UA) dans quelques semaines, se précipiter à Paris pour recevoir de Macron les directives de comment il devrait faire au cours de son mandat à la tête de l'UA et comment agir en rapport à certains états dans lesquels la France a perdu, non seulement toute crédibilité, mais est même rejetée et indésirable.
Plus grave, voici qu'un chef d'Etat désigné comme Médiateur dans la guerre en cours à l'Est de la République Démocratique du Congo (RDC) suite à l'agression de Paul Kagame du Rwanda sous couvert d'un groupe terroriste Tutsi de sa création M23/RDF, qui, étant dans l'impasse car humilié et ridiculisé à plusieurs reprises par Paul Kagame qui refuse ses invitations et dicte l'agenda des sujets à débattre lors de probables négociations avec le pays agressé, la RDC, se précipite à Paris pour demander au plus grand ami et soutien du dictateur Tutsi du Rwanda Paul Kagame, comment il pourrait cajoler le dictateur rwandais pour relancer le processus en panne afin de sauver sa crédibilité comme Médiateur.
Et pour l'humilier advantage, l'ami et admirateur de Kagame, Emmanuel Macron, a exigé à ce chef d'Etat africain Médiateur entre le Rwanda et la RDC d'aller d'abord écouter la rwandaise et proche de Kagame qui vit à Paris comme patronne de l' Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) que lui a offert Macron afin qu'il s'imprègne des exigences du Rwanda.
Comme hôte de l'Elysée et demandeur d'ordre et de conseils, le prochain président en exercice de l'UA et Médiateur dans le conflit Rwanda-RDC ne devrait que s'exécuter.
On ne sait pas encore ce que Louise Mushikiwabo lui a dit.
Dans ces conditions, que peut-on attendre le l'UA par rapport aux relations de la France sous la Macronie avec certains pays de son ancien pré-carré? Que peut-on attendre de ce Médiateur entre l'agresseur, le Rwanda de Kagame, ami de Macron et l'agressé, la RDC sous Tshisekedi, à qui l'on demande tout?
Nous avons parlé de Joao Lourenço, Président de la République d'Angola.
De la même série:
Le président angolais, Joao Lourenço, en viste à Paris | TV5 Monde:
Le président angolais, Joao Lourenço, à Paris pour une visite d'Etat | Le Monde
posted by Mamadou Kouyate @ 10:00 PM 
| ### "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington. ### |
| ### "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington. ### |
| ### "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington. ### |
