Jeff Charles, a right-wing (I say conservative, he says libertarian) podcaster and Redstate Blog contributor, says that Biden should pardon Trump because “it's what's best for the nation.” His argument is not based on any belief that Trump is innocent. Even most Republicans accept that Trump has done something wrong — they just put it in the “no-biggie” bin. Instead, he says that a Biden pardon would alleviate concerns that the DoJ is partisan. And holding Trump accountable for his crimes is merely election interference.
This spin is nonsense. If Trump were a Democrat, conservatives would be baying for blood and wailing that justice demands a death sentence for his treason. Charles fails to understand or hopes you will not notice, that the defense of Trump is as political as the prosecution of Trump is not.
Charles is also party to hypocrisy. In his philosophy, running for the presidency is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Although, for good reason, the Founders did not put that in the Constitution. And conservatives think that if the Constitution does not spell it out, it does not exist. That was their rationale for axing Roe.
Bearing his bias in mind, let us parse Charles's position. In a piece for Newsweek, he writes (links his):
“Former President Donald Trump is facing the historic circumstance of campaigning for a presidential election while under a Justice Department indictment. It has many on the Right calling foul, seeing it as evidence of a politicized justice system that's trying to win the presidential election for President Joe Biden by imprisoning his opponent.”
“The Right is crying foul” is irrelevant. If we designed national policy based on what the Right wants, then why bother having elections? Republicans think the justice system is “politicized” because they do not like it when it holds one of theirs to account — and because that is what they would do. (See the John Durham debacle.)
Charles doubles down,
“Whether or not you agree with this sentiment, many of your fellow Americans do. And there's an easy way to diffuse this allegation: President Biden could immediately and preemptively pardon former President Trump. He should absolutely do this, as soon as possible.”
His prose is breathy — “He should absolutely do this, as soon as possible,” sounds like a middle schooler.
He continues with some math.
“Recent polling suggests that a significant chunk of Americans concur. A Harvard-Harris survey found that 53 percent of Americans would support a presidential pardon for Trump. Even more unexpected is that nearly a third of Democratic voters favored a pardon as well.”
If polling decided judicial outcomes, many of the Prohibition/Great Depression gangsters, romanticized in the media and movies, would have walked. It is a suboptimal way to run a criminal justice railroad. And what of the 2/3rds of Democrats who think Biden should not pardon Trump? What about their feelings? Perhaps Charles believes they should only count as 3/5ths of a Republican.
Charles presses his point.
“By pardoning Donald Trump, President Biden would demonstrate a commitment to moving forward and fostering national healing. Avoiding a highly divisive trial would allow the country to shift its focus away from the controversies surrounding the former president and toward addressing pressing issues.”
Charles needs to stop typing and look at what the GOP House is up to. They have done nothing legislative since January. Their focus has been Hunter Biden. Why has Charles not demanded Biden pardon his son, so those Congressional zealots could focus on addressing pressing issues?
Charles then boards the boat for Fantasy Island.
“When President Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace over the Watergate matter, his successor, President Gerald Ford, issued a pardon for this exact purpose: To move the nation forward. Ford did take a hit in the polls, which might be a factor that would discourage Biden from following suit. But such a move would likely not impact him in the same way, and it may even strengthen his candidacy for 2024.”
He has it backward. If Ford had let justice take its course, it would have warned future political miscreants there are consequences for their criminal actions. As for Biden’s strengthened candidacy, who does Charles think will switch to vote for Joe? For every independent turned on by Biden’s stick in the eye of the law, there will be multiple liberals wondering why their guy stabbed them in the back.
Then, like many people trying to appeal to reasonable people while making an unreasonable argument, Charles admits his case is flawed.
"Of course, there could be some potential pitfalls with pardoning Trump. Pardoning Trump without holding him accountable for his alleged misconduct could be seen as a failure to uphold the principle that no one is above the law. Critics argue that such a pardon would send a message that powerful individuals can evade consequences for their actions. Others have argued that granting a pardon to Trump would establish a precedent that future presidents or public officials could exploit to escape accountability for potential wrongdoing, which could further diminish public trust in the justice system and weaken the checks and balances crucial for a functioning democracy."
Talk about burying the lede. Ignore the headline — in the sixth paragraph of the piece, Charles makes an airtight case for prosecuting Trump. Of course, he does not see it that way. With no evidence, he says “the potential benefits outweigh potential issues.” They do? Not from where I sit.
Charles then trots out the appeasement defense.
“A pardon would also serve another crucial function: It would keep this current legal drama from growing into a situation in which the next Republican president launches politically-motivated investigations and prosecutions against Democrats just as a tit for tat exercise.”
Bullshit. The Republicans have metaphorically annexed the Sudetenland, and a Chamberlain-style capitulation by the Democrats, will not stop them from invading Poland. Regardless of what the Democrats do, the Republicans are going to tit-for-tat. They are like the scorpion on the frog's back.
He might equally well have said, “Do not make the bully mad because he will punch you.” Charles should watch some high school movies where the scrappy kid ignores his pacifist friends, fights the bad guy, and triumphs.
Charles runs out of gas as he finishes.
“Pardoning Trump might not be the most comfortable development and could cause other issues. But overall, it's the best of a series of bad options for our nation going forward.”
He writes like the middle schooler mentioned above. The one desperately trying to flesh out an essay on a subject he knows little about. His defense of Trump (and it is a defense no matter how disinterested he tries to appear) is about as robust as that offered by any of Trump's lawyers.