Writing at the Washington Post,  Marc A. Thiessen argues in favor of a presidential pardon. Specifically, a pardon by outgoing president Joe Biden, of  incoming president Donald Trump.

I agree that Biden should pardon Trump, but I disagree with Thiessen as to why.

Thiessen’s case in brief:

Biden, in his inaugural address, pledged to end a national “uncivil war” by “bringing America together,” but  failed to deliver on his promise. C’mon, Joe! Unite all Americans in holiday joy at the splendid vision of a smirking crook skating into office unencumbered —  at least at the federal level —  by threat of prosecution!

Unlike Thiessen, I don’t expect a presidential pardon to produce anything like a uniformly positive reaction. Those among the public who pay attention to current affairs and history know Trump is a crook, if for no other reason than that he can’t resist bragging about his crimes to fill the time he doesn’t spend  whining about how unfairly he’s treated and how brutally he’s persecuted. Half of that public loves him for his crimes; the other half hates him for those crimes.

“From a legal standpoint,”  Thiessen writes, “Trump does not need a presidential pardon.” I don’t think he writes that with a straight face, though. His Post author photo features an “about to pitch you on a sketchy timeshare opportunity” grin, matching that quote perfectly.

Part of the real case for giving Trump a pardon is that he DOES need one … and that if he doesn’t get one from Biden, he’ll try to give one to himself before his second term expires, opening up yet another can of constitutional worms that nobody wants to eat.

If Biden pardons Trump, Trump’s unceasing whine — probably for a good six months —  that he didn’t need a pardon because he did nothing wrong will  embed his past crimes in the public consciousness more firmly and for longer.

Part two: A pardon for all his PAST crimes will  encourage him to get even more brazen about his FUTURE crimes. He’s going to commit those crimes anyway. Why not get louder and more boastful public confessions out of the deal?

Will Donald Trump ever face real justice? Probably not. If presidents were treated like the rest of us, Joe Biden would find himself sharing a Club Fed facility with Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton come January 21.

It is in a political, not legal, sense that Trump doesn’t need a pardon. All presidents skate for all their crimes, up to and including murder, but so far only Richard Nixon has skated with a pardon … and his crimes and that pardon are therefore pretty much all he’s remembered for. Trump deserves the same legacy.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On November 12, president-elect Donald Trump announced his second-term plans for a “Department of Government Efficiency” which will, in his words, “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.”

He’s assigning leadership of the “department” to the world’s most successful corporate welfare queen, Elon Musk, and to Vivek Ramaswamy, whose claim to fame is trying, not very well or successfully, to sell himself to the public as some kind of Trump/Musk hybrid.

Such DOGE! Much wow! Working up a backronym from Elon Musk’s favorite memecoin wasn’t hard, but it’s probably the heaviest lifting involved we’ll see from the idea.

After noticing the joke and the jokers involved, the first and most important feature to understand about this new department is that it’s not going to be a “department.”

A “department” is a cabinet-level, executive-branch organization with broad powers to administer government operations using taxpayer money appropriated for its use by Congress.  At present, there are 15 “departments” in the federal government ranging from State (diplomacy), Defense (the military) to justice (law enforcement).

DOGE, on the other hand, will operate as either a Presidential Commission or a Federal Advisory Committee. Several of the former and a thousand or so of the latter can be identified as operational at any given time,  but few of them ever get much, or continuing, attention.

Why? Because Presidential Commissions and Federal Advisory Committees only get to do one thing: Make recommendations.

When it comes to recommendations on how to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies,” the difference between your conversation with a neighbor and DOGE’s recommendations comes down, mostly, to who’s buying the coffee donuts consumed during the talking.

DOGE may get some office space, a small staff, and a tiny budget to cover the coffee and donuts, but authority to make anything happen? Nope.

We’ve been here before, many times. History is littered with commissions and advisory committees. They’re among politicians’ favorite tools for convincing you they’re going to do things they have no intention of actually doing.

Even escalating from the commission/committee scam to requiring “recommendations” from actual departments usually doesn’t accomplish much. For a recent example, look at Trump’s first term.

In 2016, Trump campaigned on eliminating two federal regulations for each new one. Then he ordered government departments to do just that.

Oh, wait, no … he ordered government departments to “identify” two regulations “to be eliminated” for each new one. No requirement that they actually BE eliminated, just that they be “identified.” Results:

As of three days before Trump’s inauguration, according to QuantGov’s Regulation Tracker, the Federal Register included 1,079,651 regulations. That number then increased, never dropping below the original number again for nearly two years, after which it began increasing again, totaling 1,089,742 on the day he left office.

This time, he’s not even letting such recommendation-making infiltrate the functional areas of government. He’s just microwaving his old guff and serving it  to Musk, Ramaswamy, and you.

Business as usual, as usual.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“TRUE!!!”

That’s president-elect Donald Trump’s response to a post on his social media platform claiming that he plans to declare a “national emergency” and use the US armed forces to abduct and deport immigrants on a very large scale.

It’s not a good idea to bet the ranch on campaign promises, especially Trump’s. In 2016, he was going to build a big, beautiful wall and make Mexico pay for it, but instead he ended up illegally misappropriating US taxpayer funds to build a partial, ineffectual, symbolic wall.

Which, by the way, Joe Biden continued construction on, just as he largely continued Trump’s other immigration polices, which in turn were pale copies of Barack Obama’s immigration policies, differing only in his screeching that Obama and Biden supported “open borders” even though they each abducted more immigrants than Trump ever managed to.

But we should, I suppose, at least entertain the notion that Trump really means this one, and that he’s stupid and evil enough to give it the old college try.

As I’ve explained many times, I’m no “constitutionalist,” but since those who rule us claim to be both empowered to do so by, and obedient to, the US Constitution, I’m all for holding them to it … and letting them suffer the consequences of violating it.

Item One: The US Constitution forbids the US government to regulate immigration with the sole exception of imposing a small head tax (see Article I, Section 9; Article V, and Amendment X).

Item Two: The US Constitution forbids government at all levels to infringe the right to keep and bear arms (see Amendment II).

Item Three: Laws repugnant to the Constitution are void (see Madison v. Marbury).

QED, when someone attempts to abduct, cage, or deport an immigrant, even under color of one of those void unconstitutional “immigration laws,” that person is just a common criminal, attempting to commit a violent crime. The prospective victim, and/or others acting in the defense of the prospective victim, are entitled by both right and constitutional protection to resist,  up to and including the use of deadly force.

Would I rather it didn’t come to that? Absolutely. I’d rejoice if the country’s ICE agents and such voluntarily handed in their gang colors and returned to useful jobs in the private sector.

But if they need stronger incentives to straighten up and fly right, that’s on them.

As my friend Nicky Reid, aka comrade hermit, suggested the last time Trump started in with this nonsense, “we the people” should arm the undocumented.

More than 100 million Americans own hundreds of millions of firearms. If, say, five million of them donated reasonably good handguns to the prospective victims of Trump’s deportation plans, ICE agents and the military personnel Trump wants to illegally order to participate in immigrant abductions would soon be finishing their shifts in bags with tags on their toes instead of at home digging in to dinner.

Strong incentives, see?

Stronger still if applied early enough to ensure Trump doesn’t even try.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY