On pardons for Jan. 6 rioters, Trump wasn’t waiting for a ‘green light’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It’s not exactly a secret that President Joe Biden sparked a significant controversy when he decided to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, with many Republicans — and plenty of Democrats — saying the retiring Democrat was wrong to intervene in the case after saying he wouldn’t.
But while much of the pushback is understandable, there’s a related dimension to the story that’s impossible to take seriously. Politico reported :
The president-elect wasn’t the only one thinking along these lines. John Solomon’s online outlet, called Just the News, ran a report with a headline that read, “Hunter Biden’s pardon gives Trump the green light on freeing some Jan. 6 defendants.” The same report noted a tweet from Charlie Kirk, a prominent far-right media personality and activist, who also wrote online, “No one in the media better complain when J6ers get their pardons now.”
So, a couple of things.
First, the idea that Trump has somehow been emboldened by the Hunter Biden pardon, opening the door to the Republican handing get-out-of-jail-free cards to Jan. 6 rioters, is preposterous. The president-elect wasn’t waiting for “green light”; he drove through the intersection months ago.
In 2022 — more than two years ago, before Hunter Biden was even indicted, and before Trump even launched his 2024 candidacy — he repeatedly talked up the idea of issuing presidential pardons to those who faced legal consequences for attacking the U.S. Capitol.
In 2024, this talk became more frequent and more explicit. Eleven months ago, at a campaign event in New Hampshire, Trump heard from a supporter who urged him to “free” Jan. 6 criminals. “We will,” he replied .
In March, issued a statement vowing in writing that one of his first acts , if returned to the White House, would be to “free” those charged and convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6 assault.
Less than a week later, Trump added additional clarity to his plan: Jan. 6 rioters could expect pardons on “ the first day ” of his second term.
When Trump sat down with Time magazine’s Eric Cortellessa in April, the reporter reminded him that more than 800 Jan. 6 participants have been sentenced through our judicial system, and most of them pleaded guilty. Others were convicted by juries. “Will you consider pardoning every one of them?” Cortellessa asked.
“I would consider that, yes,” Trump replied .
Apparently surprised, the Time reporter added, “Really?” to which the Republican said , “Yes, absolutely.”
A few months later, during a disastrous appearance before the National Association of Black Journalists, Trump added that he would pardon rioters, even if they assaulted police officers. Though it seemed hard to believe, ABC News anchor Rachel Scott reminded the Republican of the extensive injuries to police officers during the insurrectionist violence, including an officer who lost an eye. She asked whether the rioters who clashed with those officers are “patriots” who “deserve pardons.”
Trump initially responded by ignoring the question and talking about protesters spray-painting limestone at the Capitol last week. So Scott tried again, asking whether he’s prepared to pardon “rioters who assaulted police officers.” The GOP nominee replied, “Oh, absolutely. If they’re innocent, I’d pardon them.”
When Scott noted that they were talking about criminals who’ve already been convicted, Trump added that they were “convicted by a very, very tough system” — as if that somehow left open the possibility that the violent rioters, some of whom pleaded guilty, might still be innocent and deserving of presidential pardons.
This was, as a Politico report noted, “the most explicit promise Trump has made about the range of defendants he might spring from prison if he takes office — a group that now appears to include some of the most notoriously violent actors that day.”
The president-elect wasn’t waiting for an excuse or a "green light." The Biden pardon came months — by some measures, years — after Trump left little doubt about his plans to help those who attacked the country’s seat of government in his name.
But just as importantly, the phrase “false equivalence” hangs over the conversation. Some on the right are effectively saying, “If Biden can pardon his son, then Trump can pardon Jan. 6 rioters.”
In reality, however, the former and latter have nothing to do with one another. There’s ample reason to believe that Hunter Biden was subjected to selective prosecution because of his relationship to the president. Jan. 6 rioters, on the other hand, engaged in a violent — and ultimately, deadly — assault on their own country’s Capitol in the hopes of helping give illegitimate power to a failed president who’d just been voted out of office.
To draw a parallel between the two is strip reality of its meaning.
Tags
Who is online
458 visitors
If Trump were as corrupt as Biden, he would have pardoned them all in 2021 before they actually served any time. .
Before he left office on Jan 20 2021 he was not sure what pardoning them would mean for his own personal future. The political world had widely condemned him for his Jan 6th behavior and he was facing the prospect of a second impeachment. It was not until after he had lost the ability to pardon that he realized Republicans were not going to hold him to account.
Now you know.
John
You are right.
But the fact that Biden lied when he said "I will not pardon Hunter" and then gave a blanket pardon for any and all offenses - something that even pissed off some Democrats.
That means that she shares the swamp with Trump when the pardons for Jan 6 start rolling out, rather then the Democrats being atop the moral high ground saying "Tsk Tsk Mr. President".
Both Biden and Trump have now proven that they consider themselves those close to them to be above the law.
The majority of the "convictions" were simply for being on the premises or in the vicinity. Unless the defendants can be proven to have committed violent acts or property damage, they should be pardoned. They had no chance for a fair trial in the DC courts. Trump doesn't need to worry about being reelected, so he should use his presidential power to the fullest extent possible to see that justice is done
Trump Needs to Pardon All the J6 Political Prisoners on Day One
Imagine Democrats being upset about pardons for people who've actually been punished...
It's really been something to see everyone who mocked the Democrats' adopted positions on the importance of the rule of law and how no man is above it from this summer be proven so comprehensively correct just a few months later. Now some are arguing for mass preemptive pardons for Democratic officials.
The lesson is, now and forever, despite their preachiness, democrats have zero reason to claim the moral high ground when it comes to Trump.
Defenses of nine years of this ongoing atrocity of "Trump" are now entirely based on setting up false equivalencies. It is almost all defenders of Trump on this site say.
And almost all Democrats who call him a traitor use Trump to justify things they called a threat to democracy a short time ago.
That's one thing Biden has accomplished, he's destroyed any pretense that they object to Trump on anything other than partisan grounds.
I dont object to Trump because he is a Republican, I object to him because one of the biggest assholes on the planet should not be president of the United States.
I never cease to be amazed how oblivious many people are.
[✘]
But that is not disqualifying. It appears you are not so much opposed to Republican programs and values....you just can't stand Trump the asshole. To be honest, neither can I
Imagine republicans actually respecting the rule of law for once?
Let us know when Democrats start?
Democrats only believe the laws apply to those they say they do. Anyone with a D behind their name gets a pass. Anyone with an R gets overcharged; or falsely charge.
I'm hoping to see mass pardons just for the entertainment value.
They have to be for crimes convicted of or may have committed for the left to understand them. Maybe go back 20 years to make sure everything is covered.
Of course. It's the current catchphrase when someone is attempting to pretend they're not being hypocritical.
Out of curiosity, how many CHOP/CHAZ rioters are serving time?
They were prosecuted:
And they don't get a pass from me. But it is a false equivalency. They are domestic terrorist. What happened at the Captial is treason.
They were prosecuted:
Later, the Seattle City Attorney's Office opted to drop non-violent cases from these arrests.
No record of prosecution despite police being seriously injured...
That's quite a stretch, calling mostly peaceful protests treasonous. The vast majority of these protestors were prosecuted for simply being in the building, as numerous videos showed. They were then overcharged and unfairly tried in a biased DC court.
You obviously didn't read my post. The nonviolent ones were dropped, and the other ones are serving time.
Greg,
I am referring to the ones that stormed the Capital. That is treason. I am not talking about the ones who just marched. If they were in the building, they shouldn't have been and entered unlawfully.
You obviously didn't understand mine. Non violent protesters were not prosecuted, unlike January 6th, and being "arrested" for participating in a violent protest is not evidence of prosecution. Actual charges and convictions are.
One group rioted in the US Capitol. One group declared independence from the United States. It may be a false equivalency, but not in the way I think you're suggesting.
It was not, which is why none of them were charged for that. Several were convicted for "seditious conspiracy" (correctly, IMO), which is exactly what also happened in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle.
But no such charges were filed against Seattle rioters, who, incidentally, were permitted to commit these crimes in full public view for over a month while law enforcement stood by idly.
Jack,
You can only be charged with treason for acts against the United States, not against a state.
True, but that was a decision made by the mayor and governor
If you have a grievance about that, then that would be at that state's governance.
What happened at the US Capitol is an offense to the country.
So, you don’t think CHOP was an act of treason?
I am not sure what CHOP was trying to achieve. If it was an act against their state, then under their state constitution, they should be charged with treason.
Only twice has this happened historically, though, and maybe that is why it didn't happen in this case.
Again, it's not treason, it's sedition. There is a difference.
And when you commandeer an area on American soil and declare it autonomous, your crime is against the United States.
By force of arms, and then defend it's border, you can't commit a higher act of treason.
I have reviewed the differences here:
And you are right. They committed sedition, legally, because there was no outside force they were giving aid and comfort to. That being said, they aimed to overthrow the gov. I guess you could call that a coup.
And yes, when you try to declare American soil yours, then it may be sedition. Oddly enough, not a single southern state got charged with that during or after the Civil War, so I am on the fence with that. It usually has to do with outside forces. And I checked and there are people serving time for that.
Apparently, it is not treason.
I think it may be tough to make that case against the CHAZ. It's impossible to make it against the Jan 6 rioters.
I stand corrected, it was an actual insurrection unlike what happened at the capital, and using your definition, from the post you may want to tell Tig he is wrong on his definition of treason. Because at no point did trump.
They didn't.
They believed that the Democratic processes upon which our country is built were being violated. Namely, they believed votes had been counted inaccurately and the process was being rushed to avoid counting all the votes.
They were obviously incorrect in that belief, and they obviously behave very stupidly, but it is equally incorrect to accuse them of attempting to overthrow the United States government by insisting that elected and appointed officials follow the United States Constitution.
It would seem that declaring independence would be sedition, but firing on Ft Sumter was probably treason? I dunno.
You mean the ones the police literally ushered in; and stayed between the tethered lines while take pictures; and then filed right out?
Blame the DC police for all of those.
Democrats/leftists and their two tier justice system have wrecked this country. Now they are upset someone might actually attempt to end it.
The premise of the seeded article is quite straightforward. MAGAs and some dimwits in the media are saying that Biden gave Trump a "green light" to pardon the J6'ers, implying that he wasnt going to do it otherwise.
But the record indisputably shows Trump has been saying for a long long time that he would pardon them.
This is so straightforward it makes one wonder on what basis these facts can be contested.
What facts? I didn't follow the J6 investigation shit show. Were any of the perps charged and convicted of treason?
That has been obvious for quite a while.
Then you have zero reason to complain.
While I don't think it gave him any kind of permission I do think it makes it harder for the dems to not look like hypocrites when they scream about it saying they believe in the rule of law.
Congress did not care what was happing in other places; but, when it happened close to them it became a problem