From: allin
President Trump’s decision to pardon 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6 events, including some who “savagely beat cops,” sparked significant controversy [01:41:41].
Concerns Regarding the Pardons
Critics, including co-host Jason Calacanis, expressed dismay, feeling that the pardons betrayed law enforcement and were not handled with the necessary granularity [01:57:27]. Calacanis highlighted the heartbreak of seeing individuals who assaulted police officers treated as heroes, especially given the violent nature of groups like the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys, who might feel justified and threaten further violence [01:58:17]. He stressed that while some sentences might have been too long due to an imperfect justice system, the pardon power should be used meticulously on a case-by-case basis [01:57:41].
The use of pardon power by both political parties has become a concern, with accusations that it’s now being used politically [01:58:03].
Broader Context and Justifications
Co-host Chamath Palihapitiya provided a broader context for understanding the pardons, connecting them to a long-standing “sensation” that law was being applied inconsistently based on political affiliation [01:00:55]. He cited examples of perceived leniency for violent offenders elsewhere, such as during the COVID-19 lockdowns, BLM, and Antifa riots, and the decarceration movement in liberal cities [00:59:41].
Chamath also pointed to legal issues surrounding some January 6 convictions:
- The Supreme Court ruled that at least 350 convictions should likely be dismissed [01:01:36].
- Misdemeanors were allegedly “trumped up” to felonies, and procedural motions were denied for the defense while approved for the prosecution, leading to sentences disproportionate to the crime [01:01:53].
- The president himself was perceived to be a “subject of lawfare” [01:02:08].
While acknowledging that a more methodical approach to pardons would have been preferable, Chamath suggested that the pardons could serve as a means to “close this entire chapter” and redirect focus towards the equal application of law for everyone [01:02:22]. He noted that some pardons were “100% obvious,” others were “had to be done” due to court perversion, and a small number involved individuals who “did some really bad stuff” [01:02:35].
The Pardon Power in Theory
Co-host David Friedberg expressed general disapproval of the pardon power, feeling it has been “abused beyond its original intention” and suggesting a necessary constitutional amendment [01:05:31]. He noted that the actions of the executive branch now seem to supersede the judicial branch, which should protect and execute the law [01:06:17].
Friedberg cited Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 74, which discussed the pardon’s role in correcting “overly harsh or unjust outcomes” and allowing for “acts of Mercy” [01:06:51]. Hamilton also argued that in “seasons of insurrection or Rebellion,” a “well-timed offer of Pardon” can “restore the Tranquility of the Commonwealth,” even if it doesn’t seem just [01:07:20]. This implies the pardon can be a tool for national unity rather than strict justice [01:07:51].
Consequences and Future Implications
A quote from Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys leader, upon his release, stated his focus was not on retribution but success, but also that he would “not play by those rules” and that “they need to pay for what they did,” warning against “seriously bad” individuals who might “do something worse” [01:03:35]. This raised concerns about potentially emboldening violent actors.
Regarding the legal framework, the 14th Amendment’s clause that Birthright Citizenship applies to those “subject to the jurisdiction of America” is expected to be interpreted by the Supreme Court [01:04:17]. If the qualifier is interpreted to mean that illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” in the same way as legal residents or citizens, then children born to undocumented parents may no longer be considered citizens [01:05:05].
The discussion also touched on the Biden administration’s pardons for marijuana possession, which totaled around 6,500 people out of 8,000 pardons [01:08:11]. This led to an argument that such issues should be resolved through legislative or judicial changes rather than executive action [01:08:22].