Posted on 04/17/2018 8:33:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Presidential pardons have fallen under renewed scrutiny. Critics contend that President Trump is helping friends and fellow conservatives. He pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio following his conviction at the hand of a liberal federal judge. Trump also pardoned Kristian Saucier, convicted of federal crimes for taking photos in a submarine. Ultimately, the public is hearing heavy condemnation about these pardons only because of the media’s deranged anti-Trump hatred. Perhaps Trump should issue a blanket pardon for press agents like Jim Acosta, Rachel Maddow, and their illiberal ilk. They have engaged in massive corporate fraud and deception for decades.
Trump’s latest pardon to invite press/establishment calumny features Irving Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney and then assistant to President George W. Bush. Libby’s nefarious crimes? Obstruction of justice, perjury, giving false statement, and much of a result of overzealous prosecution, all of it connected to leaks over former CIA Agent Valerie Plame.
Is President Trump going too far with his pardons? Should the presidency still retain the power to pardon? Founding Father Alexander Hamilton had argued for this provision in order to secure the peace among competing combatants following domestic insurrections. The Framers were prescient beyond their years. Toward the end of the Civil War, President Lincoln intended to issue full pardons to every Confederate soldier who would repledge allegiance to the United States. “What is the best way to defeat an enemy? Make him your friend.” His successor, Democrat Andrew Johnson, issued a blanket pardon on Christmas Day 1868, despite (or perhaps because of) the animus between Executive Branch and the “Radical” Republican Congress.
Pardons can also combat new, growing problems: Deep State corruption, overzealous prosecution, and judicial activism. In the case of Sheriff Joe, the Arizona District court order was unconstitutional. In his trial, he was not permitted a jury! Someone tell me how any of that is legal. Judicial tyranny is a threat to our Republic, and presidential pardons are essential to chipping away at the dictatorship of the bench. As for overzealous prosecution … Mueller and company are on a witch hunt, wasting millions to look for crimes. Trump pardoned Libby to signal how he will scuttle upcoming prosecutorial abuses. That’s a good thing.
As for deep state corruption, one criminal case comes to mind for which Trump needs to issue a pardon: Dinesh D’Souza. The case may have faded from public memory, so here’s a brief recap. In 2014, the young conservative writer and speaker was arraigned in a Manhattan federal court for a $20,000 campaign violation, as he had exceeding arbitrary limits. How? After reaching his own limit, D’Souza asked a friend to donate to a friend, then D’Souza paid back her friend. Honestly, why is this a crime to begin with? This case highlights how criminal law has lots its basis in mens rea, or criminal intent. People are going to jail for breaking laws they know nothing about!
On top of that, this case showcased the aggressive, selective enforcement of the Obama Administration and his coven of left-wing U.S. attorneys. Other people had skirted campaign finance laws and spent more money, but they got a slap on the wrist and paid a fine.
D’Souza was prosecuted in a very public manner, then convicted of a felony. His otherwise liberal attorney was flabbergasted at the outrageous conduct of the federal judge presiding over the case. There was no reason for D’Souza to be sent up the river like that. None. Four years later, Congressional investigations have discovered a criminal dossier on D’Souza, which included special directions for the FBI to go after him because he was a frequent critic of the president.
D’Souza’s conviction and confinement in a halfway house had their benefits. He found time and resources to report on the replete corruption of the Democratic Party, their determination to “steal America.” In spite of the attempted moral stain of a felony, the polished and erudite conservative intellect has not stayed from the political and academic fray. In fact, the unjust trial and conviction gave the former Reagan adviser more street cred.
Still, it’s absolutely ridiculous that he was damned so arbitrarily for something so minor, and the political machinations behind should horrify all of us. This power play by the Obama Administration showcases another example of overzealous persecution and the weaponization of the federal judiciary. These abuses must be confronted, condemned, and closed down. Trump can accomplish all of these goals with a fully justifiable pardon for Dinesh D’Souza. After all, former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards faced unconscionable indictments for purported campaign finance crimes, but was acquitted. The most outspoken conservatives recognized that the trial was heavy-handed in that case.
It certainly was for Dinesh. Pardon me, Mr. Trump, but you need to pardon Dinesh D’Souza!
David Frum, Canadian emigrant and expatriate, Yale pseudo-Conservative, and for a brief time Presidential speech writer, has written a book in which he advocates--with no real pretense to Constitutional authority--sending America's sons (and as a fake Conservative, daughters) to die in order to support a theory: That imposing Democracy on the Near & Middle Easts by force is, in some imagined sense, in America's long term interest. While some may snicker at the sophomorish quality of a man who would advocate killing others to make them "Democratic," as some would snicker at the idea of killing others to make them free; there is nothing really funny about a verbal spin Doctor or apprentice, demanding that the United States of America, which he has adopted, sacrifice their youth for his theories.
Well, I hope at least that my utter contempt for the poseur shines through. A younger friend of mine tried to lure Frum down here for a debate with ‘yours truly’ over a decade back; but he did not take the bait. Too bad!
Let me guess... you got that idea from David Barton?
Yet somehow the Founders forgot to codify that intent into law and failed to include it in their debates.
Probably because the Constitutional convention grew out of two previous trade conferences- the Mount Vernon conference and the Annapolis convention- and it's number one goal was to correct what the Founders saw as major problems with the United States original "constitution", the Articles of Confederation.
What it wasn't, was a theological or philosophical exercise.
The closest that they came to incorporating Christian norms into the founding was to cite Deuteronomy more often than other sources such as Blackwell's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Not surprising since the founders were almost all members of Christian churches and those values were the water that they swam in. But they weren't consciously seeking to impose a religious test.
In fact one only needs to look at the 1779 Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom that grew into the 1st Amendment to see what the Founder's attitude towards religion and government was:
our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy of the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction;
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0132-0004-0082
It does. Well done!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.