By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Andrew Taake, a Texas man pardoned by President Trump for his participation in the January 6th Capitol attack, is now wanted in Texas on a pre-existing charge of soliciting a minor. Despite a request from Texas authorities, Taake was released from federal prison on January 20th. This release, along with similar instances involving pardoned individuals from Indiana, Florida, and Kentucky, highlights the ongoing challenges faced by law enforcement in handling those released under the blanket pardons. The Harris County District Attorney’s office is actively working to apprehend Taake.
Read the original article here
A Texas man pardoned for his involvement in the January 6th attack on the US Capitol is now wanted by authorities on a 2016 charge of soliciting a minor online. This case highlights a disturbing pattern emerging from the pardons granted following the insurrection.
This situation underscores a troubling question: were adequate background checks conducted before these pardons were issued? The sheer number of individuals subsequently implicated in other crimes raises serious concerns about the vetting process. It seems incredibly unlikely that these individuals were vetted, considering the sheer volume of cases emerging and the gravity of the new charges.
The revelation that this man, pardoned for his role in the January 6th events, is now wanted for a serious sex crime against a child brings the nature of some of those involved into sharp focus. It’s a stark reminder that the participants in the attack weren’t a monolithic group of patriots, but rather a collection of individuals with diverse and often troubling backgrounds.
The lack of public outrage from certain political factions regarding these revelations is particularly striking. The relative silence on this issue contrasts sharply with the vocal condemnation often heard about other crimes and accusations, lending credence to the suggestion that there’s a double standard at play. This selective outrage only intensifies skepticism surrounding the true motivations and allegiance of some of those involved in the January 6th events.
Considering the frequency with which similar stories are emerging, it’s reasonable to question the overall makeup of those involved in the January 6th attack. If a significant portion of those pardoned are subsequently found to have committed other crimes, it raises serious questions about the nature of the initial charges and the appropriateness of the pardons themselves.
The seemingly disproportionate number of pardonees facing additional charges is quite alarming. One wonders if there were other red flags that were missed during the vetting process or, even more disturbingly, if these red flags were simply ignored.
The possibility that many of these individuals were already known to law enforcement prior to the January 6th events but were pardoned regardless is unsettling. It suggests a systemic failure, either in the vetting process or a deliberate disregard for the implications of extending such clemency.
This latest incident raises important questions about accountability and the potential for future similar scenarios. If individuals pardoned for their involvement in the January 6th insurrection can subsequently be implicated in unrelated, serious crimes, it raises significant concerns about the efficacy of the pardon system and the thoroughness of the background checks involved.
The sheer volume of cases coming to light raises serious questions about the quality of the vetting process and the potential for other individuals pardoned for their role in the January 6th events to face similar charges in the future. It is a situation that warrants further investigation and reform to prevent similar occurrences.
This case, and the many others like it, underscore the need for a thorough and independent review of the pardon process, ensuring that future pardons are not granted without appropriate vetting and consideration of all relevant factors, including existing criminal charges or investigations. The current situation suggests a significant gap in due diligence.
The ongoing revelations about these individuals are unsettling, prompting renewed concerns about who precisely participated in the January 6th attack, and the underlying motivations and characters of those involved. The pattern that is emerging suggests a far more complex and concerning picture than what was initially presented.
The events surrounding this Texas man and other similarly situated individuals necessitate a reassessment of the circumstances surrounding the pardons granted following the January 6th attack. The frequency of these subsequent arrests strongly indicates that a more rigorous vetting process is urgently needed to prevent future occurrences of this nature.
The lack of appropriate vetting highlights a serious flaw in the pardon process, and raises concerns about the integrity of the system. In the wake of these revelations, substantial reform is essential to ensure such failures are avoided in the future. The current trend suggests a serious oversight that demands immediate attention and rectification.