SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democracy
Pardons for Trump's Insurrectionists Would Be Grotesque
Trump rewarding people who tried to ignite an insurrection turns the pardon power on its head.
Jan 11, 2025
President-elect Donald Trump says that, on the same day that he is inaugurated for his 2.0 presidency, he will pardon people who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. “It’s going to start in the first hour,” he told Time magazine when they interviewed him for their cover story after naming him man of the year, “Maybe the first nine minutes.”
On the campaign trail, Trump described the January 6 rioters as “political prisoners,” conveniently forgetting the fact that those progressing through the criminal justice system were charged by grand juries and convicted by either juries or federal judges. He calls them “great patriots,” even opening his first campaign rally in Waco, Texas, with “Justice for All,” a song recorded over the phone by imprisoned insurrectionists, set to the tune of the “Star Spangled Banner.”
Pardoning them would be, as Brennan Center President Michael Waldman has said, a misuse of the president’s clemency power. And indeed, two-thirds of Americans oppose it, according to a recent Washington Post poll.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution gives broad power to presidents to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,” excepting only “Cases of Impeachment.” The power to both pardon crimes and commute sentences is unrestricted in any other way, except, perhaps, by the still-untested-in-the-courts limitation that a president may not pardon himself.
In other words, Trump can pardon the January 6 defendants. He would not violate the law or exceed the power extended to him by the Constitution if he did so. But while it would not technically be an abuse of his power to do so, it would be an appalling, unprecedented violation of the trust the American people place in their leaders.
In mid-December, President Biden pardoned 39 individuals convicted of nonviolent crimes and commuted the sentences of some 1,500 additional people who had qualified for early release from prison during the Covid-19 pandemic and succeeded in reentering their communities. He reflected on the exercise of the pardon power when he took that action, saying, “I have the great privilege of extending mercy to people who have demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, restoring opportunity for Americans to participate in daily life and contribute to their communities.” The group includes “parents, veterans, health care professionals, teachers, advocates, and engaged members of their communities.”
By contrast, according to reporting compiled by NBC’s Ryan Reilly, the January 6 defendants were captured on video brandishing and using firearms, stun guns, flagpoles, fire extinguishers, bike racks, batons, a metal whip, office furniture, pepper spray, bear spray, a tomahawk ax, a hatchet, a hockey stick, knuckle gloves, a baseball bat, a massive Trump billboard, Trump flags, a pitchfork, pieces of lumber, crutches, and even an explosive device during the attack on the Capitol. More than 140 police officers were injured and members of Congress fled the building in fear for their lives. (Biden’s commutation of sentences for 37 people on death row should not be conflated with Trump’s proposed action. Commutation means they will serve the rest of their lives in prison instead of being executed, a far cry from the immediate release Trump has discussed for January 6 defendants.)
It’s even worse if Trump intends to pardon members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys organizations convicted of seditious conspiracy, something that he has not ruled out. Judge Amit Mehta, who sentenced the Oath Keepers’ leader, Yale Law School graduate Stewart Rhodes, to 18-years in prison for seditious conspiracy said, “The notion that Stewart Rhodes could be absolved is frightening — and ought to be frightening to anyone who cares about democracy.”
If Trump pardons January 6 rioters, he would be using the pardon power to erase an attack on Constitution and country. The purpose of that attack was his personal benefit — if it had succeeded, it could have permitted him to stay in power after losing the election, contrary to every principle of American democracy. An exercise of the pardon power along those lines would have no resemblance to what the Founding Fathers intended. The pardon power, which was only included after extensive debate, was based on the English “prerogative of mercy” that resided in kings and queens to undo punishment that was deemed too harsh. It was not about rewarding political loyalists.
Pardoning people convicted of plotting to interfere with the lawful and peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election isn’t a righteous grant of mercy. Few of these defendants have shown remorse and some have shown outright defiance, like Ryan Grillo, who said, “Trump’s gonna pardon me anyways” after Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced him in December. The January 6 offenders Trump has committed to pardoning aren’t people who committed nonviolent crimes in their late teens and early twenties and, having served significant portions of their sentence, are now prepared to return to their communities as rehabilitated individuals deserving of a second chance. If anything, the January 6 defendants’ return would give a boost to the white supremacist and domestic terror groups many of them participated in before they overran the Capitol, and it would severely dampen the deterrent effect of our laws against future aggression.
It has been the practice in most recent administrations to use the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice to review requests for pardons and commutations before they are handed up to the White House counsel and the president for a decision. That process includes an extensive evaluation of each individual applicant’s request, including consultation with prosecutors, lawyers, judges, victims, probation officers, prison staff and others to determine whether the requested clemency would serve the interests of justice without endangering the community. Pardons have often been used in the interests of equal justice when people are serving lengthy sentences that would no longer be handed down or in cases of extraordinary rehabilitation when people have demonstrated a commitment to the future of their communities. None of those considerations will be in play if Trump pardons January 6 offenders.
The key to Trump’s pardons is that they are not about people and their communities. They are about personal loyalty to him. Trump summoned these individuals to the Capitol to support him and now he will pardon them to complete that transaction. Trump will use the pardon power to make it clear that violence and violation of the law can be forgiven in service to himself.
Pardoning the rioters is a grotesque misuse of the pardon power because, cloaked in the appearance of lawful authority, it would put the presidential seal on crimes that go to the heart of an attack on our democracy, an effort to undo the will of the voters and seat a man who lost an election as the country’s leader. By advertising his willingness to pardon the people who supported him rather than the Constitution, Trump is sending a message to the people he is counting on to support him this go-round: If they protect him, he will take care of them. It’s a message fit for a would-be authoritarian.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Magazine Publishes Previously Secret DNC Membership List
Corporate lobbyists and big-time fundraisers are among the Democratic National Committee members set to decide on the organization's leadership in the coming weeks.
Jan 10, 2025
With the Democratic National Committee set to vote on its next chair in just over three weeks, a progressive magazine on Friday published in full a previously secret list of the DNC members who will decide on the next leader of the party organization in the wake of the disastrous November election.
The American Prospect's Micah Sifry reported that he obtained the closely guarded list from a "trusted source with long experience with the national party."
"This person thinks it's absurd that the party's roster of voting members is secret," Sifry wrote. "Indeed, since there is no official public list, each of the candidates running for chair and other positions has undoubtedly had to create their own tallies from scratch—making it very likely our list comes from a candidate's whip operation."
Based on the DNC's public statements, it was known that the DNC has 448 active members who will decide on key leadership posts in the coming weeks. But the identities of the individuals were, until Friday, kept under wraps.
Michael Kapp, a DNC member from California, told the Prospect that the committee's leadership "holds tightly to the list to prevent any organizing beyond their control."
"Knowing who has actual voting power over the DNC's governance may give grassroots activists around the country who care about the party's future some greater capacity to focus their efforts on the people who actually pull the levers."
The newly revealed list includes more than 70 "at large" members who were all "whisked into their current positions on the DNC roster by [outgoing chair] Jaime Harrison in 2021," Sifry wrote.
"According to DNC bylaws, at-large members must be voted in by the rest of the membership, but the current class was put forward by Harrison as a single slate that was voted on up-or-down as a bloc," Sifry added. "The hacks definitely stand out among Harrison's handpicked cohort. Those include top fundraisers Kristin Bertolina Faust and Alicia Rockmore of California, Carol Pensky of Florida, and Deborah Simon of Indiana, as well as David Huynh of New York, whose main claim to fame appears to be his work as a consultant to now-jailed cryptocurrency hustler Sam Bankman-Fried when he appeared to be the Next Big Funder of the Democrats in 2021-2022."
The list also includes several lobbyists—such as Scott Brennan, a DNC member from Iowa who works for a lobbying firm with clients such as JPMorgan Chase and PhRMA—as well as union leaders, including American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten.
The DNC membership list was revealed as the organization prepares to vote on key leadership posts, including the committee's chair and vice chair positions.
Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler, Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party chair Ken Martin, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley are among the contenders for the chairmanship.
James Zogby, a longtime DNC member and outspoken progressive, is running for a vice chair post with the goal of improving "accountability and transparency" at the committee and curbing the influence of dark money—something the DNC has repeatedly refused to address.
Sifry acknowledged Friday that "making the DNC's membership roster public may have little overall effect on the direction of the organization."
"It is, after all, highly dependent on big money and exquisitely attuned to the political needs of the party’s leading officials in Congress," he noted. "According to OpenSecrets, the top contributors to the DNC in the 2023-2024 cycle, after House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries' campaign organization, were Bain Capital ($2.9 million), Google parent company Alphabet ($2.6M), Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins ($2.5M), community media conglomerate Newsweb Corp. ($2.5M), Jeffrey Katzenberg’' holding company WndrCo ($2.5M), Microsoft ($2.4M), Reid Hoffman’s VC firm Greylock Partners ($2.4M), real estate developer McArthurGlen Group ($2.2M), and hedge fund Lone Pine Capital ($2.2M)."
However, Sifry added, "knowing who has actual voting power over the DNC's governance may give grassroots activists around the country who care about the party's future some greater capacity to focus their efforts on the people who actually pull the levers."
"What they do with that potential," he wrote, "is up to them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Imperialism Atop Western Warmongering
The hypocrisy of the so-called "highly-developed" or "rule-of-law" democracies knows no bounds.
Jan 09, 2025
Conflicts across the world’s regions experienced a further surge in 2024, according to data provided by Armed Conflict Locations & Event Data (ACLED)—an independent, international non-profit organization that collects data on real time on locations, actors, fatalities, and types of all reported political violence and protest events around the world. While Ukraine and Gaza are considered the two major global hotspots of conflict, violence increased by 25 percent in 2024 compared to 2023 and conflict levels have experienced a two-fold increase over the past five years, according to ACLED. The intensity and human toll of armed conflicts are also on the rise as more civilians are exposed to violence and the number of actors involved in violence is proliferating.
What is also noteworthy about the data on violence collected by ACLED is that neither democracy nor more development appears to constrain violence. In fact, the data collected by ACLED shows that countries with elections in 2024 experienced much higher rates of violence than countries without elections.
As militarism and warmongering are pushed to new heights, the rhetoric of peace also goes into full swing.
Speaking of electoral democracies, warmongering talk is also sharply on the increase in developed nations, courtesy of major leaders of the western world, and comes with a rising militarism. Mark Rutte, NATO’s recently appointed secretary-general, warned last month that “danger is moving toward us at full speech” and that the west must face the fact that “what is happening in Ukraine could happen here too.” He urged NATO to “shift to a wartime mindset” and implored the citizens of NATO countries to tell their banks and funds that “it is simply unacceptable that they refuse to invest in the defense industry.” UK’s prime minister Keir Starmer has zealously endorsed the widening of NATO’s war against Russia and recently gave Ukraine permission to use Storm Shadow cruise missiles inside Russia. And Joe Biden delivered a warmongering rant at his final address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on September 24, 2024, urging an expansion of alliances against Russia and China and threatening Iran.
Warmongering is a constant element in the never ending obsession of U.S. presidents since the end of the Second World War to pursue a policy of what Andrew Bacevich described a few years ago as “militarized hegemony until the end of time.” Indeed, since the breakout of the Ukraine conflict, Washington has been more than eager to wage a proxy war against Russia while the U.S.-led western military bloc (NATO) has increased its military presence in the eastern part of the Alliance, seeks to expand its southern flank to Africa and looks toward the Indo-Pacific as part of its global approach to security. Meanwhile, all major western states have been behind Israel in its destruction of Gaza, offering the Jewish state an extraordinary level of support (weapons, cash and political support) as it carries out war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Of course, as militarism and warmongering are pushed to new heights, the rhetoric of peace also goes into full swing. Western hypocrisy knows no bounds. Biden spoke of the need for a peaceful world in his final address to the UN although he has done everything in his power to prolong the war in Ukraine and ensure Gaza’s destruction. His administration has vowed to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian and has fueled Israel’s war in Gaza, making the U.S. complicit in war crimes in Gaza.
Geopolitical forecasts for 2025 are grim.
The Biden administration did very little to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine as it totally ignored the question of Ukraine’s membership into NATO and has denied massacres, genocide and ethnic cleansing taking place in Gaza by the Israel Defense Fores (IDF). In fact, Biden himself called the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu “outrageous.” The icing on the cake was when Biden’s Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, who will go down as the worse Secretary of State since World War II, had the audacity to write in a recent essay in Foreign Affairs that the United States is a country that, unlike Russia and China, seeks a “world where international law, including the core principles of the UN Charter, is upheld, and universal human rights are respected.”
Unsurprisingly, geopolitical forecasts for 2025 are grim. ACLED projects an annual increase of 20 percent in levels of violence in 2025. And then there is Trump’s return to the White House which surely adds another layer of unpredictability to an already volatile and highly dangerous world.
Imperialism is still about world hegemony and a struggle for the control of strategic resources.
Trump’s second administration seems set on advancing a new version of Manifest Destiny with threats of retaking the Panama Canal, which the U.S. ceded to Panama in 1999, forcibly buying Greenland, which is controlled by Denmark, and calling Canada “the 51st State,” a remark he repeated shortly after Justin Trudeau’s resignation.
Imperialism seems to be Trump’s new theme, but his overall vision of power is reminiscent of U.S. imperialist attitudes of the 19th century. He seems to believe that territorial expansion of the boundaries of the United States would make the country safer, stronger, and more prosperous. Of course, this could all just be a symptom of Trump’s arrogance and ignorance, but there can be no denying that imperialism is embedded in U.S. political culture. The U.S. has been preparing for a future global conflict for quite some time now, first with Russia and then with China.
Imperialism seems to be Trump’s new theme, but his overall vision of power is reminiscent of U.S. imperialist attitudes of the 19th century.
The U.S. set the theater for a conflict with Russia by orchestrating the 2014 coup in Ukraine, treating the country in turn as a NATO ally in all but name and subsequently engaging in military provocations with the hope of inducing Russia to embark on a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which finally occurred on February 24, 2022. And it has been following the same scenario in the Asia-Pacific region by making Taiwan and the South China Sea the fuse for conflict.
The truth is that U.S. imperialism never died. And how could it when the U.S. still maintains around 750 military bases in at least 80 countries and territories (U.S. bases represent over 90 percent of the world’s foreign bases) and spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined, which include major powers such as China, Russia, India, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom? There are more active-duty U.S. Air Force personnel in Britain than in 40 U.S. states.
Of course, imperialism has taken new forms in the 21st century and the dynamics of exploitation have changed. But imperialism is still about world hegemony and a struggle for the control of strategic resources. Military and economic/natural resource interests are interrelated, and the major capitalist states are all caught in an inescapable struggle for survival, power, and prestige. In its turn, the U.S. continues to exercise imperial power by using all its available tools and weapons to make the world conform to its own whims and wants as it tries to shore up its declining economic dominance. But with Trump’s return to the White House, and armed as he appears to be with a new version of Manifest Destiny, U.S. imperialism may become more aggressive and even more dangerous to world peace. If that turns out to be the case, the world is headed for an even more violent future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular