The coverage of pardons is such a disappointment. I could not even finish "What the left is saying" because it is so vile, odious, and disgustingly biased. Out of 170 clemencies, you found, what, half a dozen to spew hate about? Bannon seems to be the worst. "Stole millions," did he? Wrong. There were three other defendants who between them might--or might not--have misused a few hundred thousand dollars (according to the charging documents). We don't know: There was no trial, and no one has yet heard their side of the story, but because they are conservatives, you of course presume they are guilty of whatever CNN alleges. Everyone should read what Lawrence Tribe wrote about pardons in the Financial Times last week to learn just how vicious, nasty and mean a person can possibly be. As least you did not mention Charles Kushner, who served his entire sentence before being pardoned.
For the record, and contrary to your coverage, Obama issued 1,927 clemencies (in two terms) and the only modern president who issued fewer than Trump was George HW Bush. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires those granted clemency to be innocent. On the contrary, by accepting the pardon, they admit guilt. The only requirement is that the president be willing to forgive them for their crime. If it were me, I would have pardoned tens of thousands because I am willing to forgive them.
What I hated most about the coverage of pardons is that it put me in a position of defending Steve Bannon, whom I despise. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, I guess, now applies only to liberals.
Hey Shawn! As is always the case, what the left/right is saying is not supposed to be my view, it's coverage of the views that are out there -- so I won't defend writing that isn't my own. What I will say about My take is that, as I've said in all the pardon coverage (this is the 4th issue now), Trump had an opportunity to do some serious good. I think he squandered that opportunity. Pardoning people is about resolving miscarriages of justice. I think he did that in some cases here, as I noted, but when you look at the full list (which I linked to) there is way less focus on draconian sentences and nonviolent criminals than there is on fraud and political swampiness.
My position is that Trump ran against the very things he spent so much of his pardon capacity to excuse and that it's a major disappointment — especially in the context of those he did not pardon.
The coverage of pardons is such a disappointment. I could not even finish "What the left is saying" because it is so vile, odious, and disgustingly biased. Out of 170 clemencies, you found, what, half a dozen to spew hate about? Bannon seems to be the worst. "Stole millions," did he? Wrong. There were three other defendants who between them might--or might not--have misused a few hundred thousand dollars (according to the charging documents). We don't know: There was no trial, and no one has yet heard their side of the story, but because they are conservatives, you of course presume they are guilty of whatever CNN alleges. Everyone should read what Lawrence Tribe wrote about pardons in the Financial Times last week to learn just how vicious, nasty and mean a person can possibly be. As least you did not mention Charles Kushner, who served his entire sentence before being pardoned.
For the record, and contrary to your coverage, Obama issued 1,927 clemencies (in two terms) and the only modern president who issued fewer than Trump was George HW Bush. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires those granted clemency to be innocent. On the contrary, by accepting the pardon, they admit guilt. The only requirement is that the president be willing to forgive them for their crime. If it were me, I would have pardoned tens of thousands because I am willing to forgive them.
What I hated most about the coverage of pardons is that it put me in a position of defending Steve Bannon, whom I despise. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, I guess, now applies only to liberals.
Hey Shawn! As is always the case, what the left/right is saying is not supposed to be my view, it's coverage of the views that are out there -- so I won't defend writing that isn't my own. What I will say about My take is that, as I've said in all the pardon coverage (this is the 4th issue now), Trump had an opportunity to do some serious good. I think he squandered that opportunity. Pardoning people is about resolving miscarriages of justice. I think he did that in some cases here, as I noted, but when you look at the full list (which I linked to) there is way less focus on draconian sentences and nonviolent criminals than there is on fraud and political swampiness.
My position is that Trump ran against the very things he spent so much of his pardon capacity to excuse and that it's a major disappointment — especially in the context of those he did not pardon.