By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Governor Whitmer expressed deep disappointment over President Trump’s consideration of pardoning the individuals convicted of plotting her kidnapping. She condemned political violence regardless of target or origin, highlighting her own condemnation of an attack on President Trump. Whitmer plans to communicate her concerns to the White House, despite recent collaborations with Trump on state matters. These meetings, including one where Trump signed executive orders targeting political opponents, have drawn criticism but Whitmer maintains her focus on bipartisan cooperation for Michigan’s benefit.
Read the original article here
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s expression of “disappointment” regarding the potential pardon of the men who plotted to kidnap her feels underwhelming, given the gravity of the situation. The fact that a former president is even considering such a pardon is deeply troubling, and her reaction seems insufficient to convey the immense threat she faced. A plot to kidnap and potentially harm a governor is an act of extreme political violence, and the casual consideration of a pardon trivializes that violence.
It’s understandable that many people find her response inadequate. “Disappointment” suggests a mild letdown, perhaps akin to missing a flight or a postponed event, not the chilling realization that those who tried to violently overthrow the democratic process are being rewarded. The sheer audacity of even suggesting a pardon for such individuals shows a disregard for the rule of law and the safety of elected officials.
The potential pardon sends a dangerous message: that political violence is acceptable, perhaps even encouraged. It normalizes extremism and creates a climate of fear for elected officials, discouraging open dissent and bipartisanship. This is not a matter of political disagreement; this is about a threat to the very foundation of democracy.
Beyond the political implications, the emotional response of the Governor is key. Many feel that her reaction lacks the appropriate intensity for such a grave situation. Surely, the emotions of fear, anger, and outrage should be more prominent than “disappointment.” Her calm demeanor might be interpreted as a lack of seriousness about the threat, undermining the gravity of the situation.
This could be a strategic political calculation, but that doesn’t change the underlying concern. The public deserves to see a strong, unambiguous condemnation of this action, not a muted response that may be perceived as weakness or acceptance. It’s essential for her, and all elected officials, to unequivocally reject such pardons and actively advocate against them.
There are also questions about whether her earlier actions may have inadvertently contributed to this situation. Some observers point to past interactions with the former president as possible factors leading to this current predicament. It is important to examine these interactions and their potential consequences. Regardless of her past interactions, her current response to the threat is what truly matters.
The use of a pardon in this context is problematic for multiple reasons. A presidential pardon is generally used for those who have demonstrated remorse and undertaken steps towards rehabilitation. It’s not intended to reward political violence or to condone acts against democracy. Pardoning these individuals could be interpreted as actively promoting such behavior.
The legal and political ramifications of this potential pardon are far-reaching. It could erode public trust in the system, further polarize society, and encourage others to resort to violence to achieve political ends. The focus should be on upholding the law and ensuring that such heinous acts are not rewarded. If the pardon goes through, it will undoubtedly set a dangerous precedent.
Moreover, the lack of state-level charges against the accused adds another layer of complexity. It raises questions about whether federal prosecution was the most effective strategy in this case. The possibility of state-level charges remains a vital avenue to pursue justice, even if the federal route encounters obstacles.
In conclusion, Governor Whitmer’s “disappointment” should be replaced with stronger, clearer language. This is not a matter of simply being “disappointed” but a direct attack on democracy. The potential pardon underscores the urgent need for a firm and unwavering defense against political violence. The quiet disappointment needs to be replaced with a fiery condemnation, demonstrating the seriousness of this dangerous precedent. The potential for the erosion of the rule of law and the chilling effect on future political discourse demands a robust and vocal response.