Dem
47
GOP
53
Of all the adverse news that's already piled up, Donald Trump's biggest headache this week might be the 1/6 pardons—certainly enough of a headache that we're going to give the subject its own item. It is possible that if the President had limited himself to the less egregious offenders, the matter might have blown over. We will never know, however, because that is not what he did. Instead, he pardoned a bunch of violent nutters like Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, not to mention numerous folks who assaulted police officers. That certainly crossed a line, and bought Trump a bunch of trouble that he and the Republicans really don't want.
You can tell, very easily, that Trump and his fellow Republicans know that they have really poked a hornet's nest. Yesterday, for the third time in as many days, Trump appeared on Fox to explain why the pardons were the right thing to do. Meanwhile, Trump loyalists in the House of Representatives are setting up a subcommittee that will be the anti-1/6 Committee. Its purpose will be to produce, for lack of a better term, propaganda meant to persuade voters that 1/6 was no big deal, and that everything the original 1/6 Committee revealed was lies, lies and more lies.
There are just a few problems here. The first is that people tend to believe what they see with their own eyes, and everyone watched the events of 1/6 on TV. Many people also watched the 1/6 Committee hearings, which were carefully staged for maximal effect. Meanwhile, the counter-programming effort is going to be managed by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), in his capacity as chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Jordan has spent years on efforts of this sort, and he's never had any success at securing coverage from anyone but the Foxes and Newsmaxes of the world.
The second problem is that the people who comprise the American legal system are very unhappy about Trump's pardons, and they are not keeping quiet about it. For example, Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger sat for an interview with CBS News, and said he was deeply concerned by the pardons, noting that "I think it sends the message that politics is more important than policing." Similarly, the various judges who were overseeing ongoing 1/6 cases were compelled to dismiss, since there are no longer valid criminal charges to be adjudicated. Nearly all of them, in their dismissal orders, expressed their unhappiness with the pardons. For example, here's a passage from the dismissal order issued by Tanya Chutkan:
The Government's only stated reason for pursuing dismissal with prejudice is that the President, in addition to pardoning the Defendant, has ordered the Attorney General to do so. The Court does not discern—and neither party has identified—any defect in either the legal merits of, or the factual basis for, the Government's case...
More broadly, no pardon can change the tragic truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. On that day, "a mob professing support for then-President Trump violently attacked the United States Capitol" to stop the electoral college certification. The dismissal of this case cannot undo the "rampage [that] left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage." It cannot diminish the heroism of law enforcement officers who "struggled, facing serious injury and even death, to control the mob that overwhelmed them." It cannot whitewash the blood, feces, and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America's sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.
In hundreds of cases like this one over the past four years, judges in this district have administered justice without fear or favor. The historical record established by those proceedings must stand, unmoved by political winds, as a testament and as a warning.
For those keeping score at home, that's law... and order. These folks can't exactly hit the campaign trail in 2 years, but their words and their interviews will be available for use in commercials, and the like.
And that brings us to the third problem. It is true that the furor over the 1/6 pardons will eventually die down... for now. But the subject is going to rear its ugly head again, once the 2026 campaign heats up. In particular, Republicans in tough races are absolutely going to be asked about whether or not they supported the pardons. They can say "no," and risk the fury of Trump, not to mention Republican voters who like what the President did. Or, they can say "yes," and take the side of lawlessness, which is not exactly a popular position. Oh, and many of them are already on the record having said things similar to what J.D. Vance said: "If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned." So, if these folks come out as pro-pardon in 2026, they will also have to explain why they changed their mind.
There is also one last problem. Some of the really awful people Trump pardoned are not going to go gentle into that good night. They are still hell-raisers who yearn for some form of violent revolution. And whenever they commit their next illegal or morally dubious acts, it will bring the pardon story back to life for a few news cycles. On the day Rhodes got out of prison, he visited the Capitol complex, said many incendiary things, and met with some far-right members of Congress. Tarrio, for his part, has already decreed that he wants "retribution" against those who put him in prison. These two men have every intention of "finishing" what they started.
In short, Trump may well have shot himself in the foot. And what he definitely did was shoot his fellow Republicans in their collective feet. (Z)