By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Donald Trump’s threat to imprison members of the January 6th Committee, Senator Bernie Sanders urged President Biden to consider preemptive pardons for those targeted. Sanders, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, condemned Trump’s statement as authoritarian and an assault on the rule of law. Trump’s threat comes amidst his repeated pledges to pardon Capitol rioters upon assuming office. The January 6th Committee’s report concluded that Trump criminally participated in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
Read the original article here
Bernie Sanders’ suggestion that President Biden “very seriously” consider pre-emptive pardons for members of the House January 6th Committee is a proposal that deserves careful consideration. It highlights the deeply troubling political climate and the potential for politically motivated prosecutions following a future Trump presidency.
The core of the issue revolves around the fear of retribution. The suggestion implies a belief that a future Trump administration might relentlessly pursue legal action against these committee members, not for any genuine legal transgression, but purely as a means of silencing dissent and punishing those who investigated his actions. This isn’t about legal guilt or innocence; it’s about the perceived threat of politically driven prosecutions.
Such a move would undoubtedly be interpreted as a highly unusual and potentially controversial action. Pre-emptive pardons typically aren’t granted without a clear admission of guilt or a pending charge. In this case, the idea is preventative, aiming to shield individuals from what is seen as an inevitable wave of politically motivated legal challenges. The very fact that such a measure is even being discussed underscores the deeply polarized political landscape.
However, the potential downsides are significant. Granting pre-emptive pardons could be spun by Trump and his supporters as an admission of guilt, bolstering their claims of a “deep state” conspiracy and further entrenching partisan divisions. It could also be seen as a weakening of the rule of law, creating a precedent for political interference in the justice system. This might be perceived as an act of political appeasement rather than a defense of democratic principles.
The argument against pre-emptive pardons centers around the principle of due process and the presumption of innocence. The counter-argument suggests that it’s inappropriate to pardon individuals before any charges have even been filed. Such actions could be considered an admission of guilt, even if none exists, and a dangerous precedent to set.
On the other hand, the counter-argument also recognizes the potential for an unprecedented level of political persecution. The fear isn’t simply of legal charges, but of endless investigations, harassment, and financial ruin designed to intimidate and silence political opponents. In such a climate, a pre-emptive pardon might be seen as a necessary, albeit imperfect, safeguard. The focus shifts from preventing specific criminal convictions to preventing the broader, potentially devastating, consequences of a politically motivated campaign of persecution.
Ultimately, the decision to grant pre-emptive pardons presents a complex dilemma. It’s a choice between potentially undermining the justice system by creating a precedent for politically motivated pardons and protecting individuals from what is perceived as an inevitable wave of politically motivated legal attacks. There is no easy answer, and the potential consequences of either decision are significant.
The very fact that this debate is happening is deeply troubling. It reflects a profound erosion of trust in the institutions of government and a growing fear of politically motivated prosecutions. The decision of whether or not to grant pre-emptive pardons is a difficult one that requires weighing the potential benefits of protecting individuals from political persecution against the risks of undermining the integrity of the justice system. This is a truly unique and unprecedented situation, highlighting the fragility of democratic norms in a highly polarized political environment.
The debate also raises broader questions about the state of American democracy and the willingness of political leaders to defend democratic principles even in the face of significant threats. It calls into question whether the rule of law can withstand the pressures of intense partisan conflict. The conversation needs to extend beyond the narrow question of pardons and address the underlying issues that have led to this point. Failing to do so, risks exacerbating the very problems that make such drastic measures seem necessary in the first place.