By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and his former Chief of Staff Cade Cothren have been granted pardons by President Donald Trump following their convictions on corruption charges. Both men were sentenced in September, with Casada facing 36 months in federal prison for charges including wire fraud and money laundering. The pardons relate to a case involving over $51,000 in state constituent mail payments funneled to Cothren through Phoenix Solutions, resulting in Casada and Cothren receiving over $35,000 in bribes. The pardons come after Casada confirmed he received a call from the president and a White House official stated that the men were over-prosecuted for a minor issue.
Read the original article here
President Trump pardons former TN House Speaker Glen Casada, chief of staff, after corruption convictions, and honestly, the reaction is pretty much what you’d expect. The news lands with a resounding thud of “Here we go again,” a sentiment echoing through a lot of commentary. Casada, you see, was found guilty on a whole host of charges – theft, bribery, you name it. His chief of staff, too, got the same guilty verdict. Then, fast forward to the aftermath of their sentencing, and guess what? A presidential pardon. It’s a move that, for many, solidifies the narrative of a political system that seems to prioritize loyalty and favors over the rule of law.
The phrase “GOP is a criminal protection racket” gets thrown around, and it’s easy to see why. The perception, real or manufactured, is that certain individuals are shielded from accountability, seemingly because of their political affiliations or connections. This isn’t just about Casada and his chief of staff, it fits into a pattern. The pardons are seen by many as a signal that the “drain the swamp” promise was more of a mirage than a genuine commitment to reform.
Of course, the immediate response from Casada himself, as quoted in reports, is gratitude. He expresses thanks for the president’s trust and says he’s looking forward to returning to his family. The mention of “hundreds of people praying” is met with skepticism and a touch of dark humor. It’s the kind of statement that invites cynicism, highlighting the performative aspect of public displays of faith and the perceived disconnect between the actions of some and the values they claim to hold. It raises questions about the definition of justice, especially when it appears to be so easily bought or swayed.
The power of the pardon itself comes under scrutiny. It’s a constitutional authority, but in this context, it feels less like a tool of mercy and more like a political instrument. There’s a frustration that the pardons are seen as being reserved for those with financial crimes and political connections. The idea of a constitutional amendment to curtail this power gains traction, a reaction to what feels like an abuse of presidential discretion.
The whispers of “RICO charges” and “the most corrupt president ever” get louder, and the focus turns to the potential financial entanglements. The phrase “bought some grift crypto, at the ‘secure a pardon’ tier” captures the essence of cynicism. The suspicion is that these pardons aren’t just about political favors, they are about who paid the price to get them. The fact that the third person involved, who cooperated and received a reduced sentence, didn’t get a pardon also supports this idea. The message is clear: cooperate and face the consequences; stay loyal and hope for a pardon.
The phrase “he didn’t drain the swamp, he’s the swamp rat” is very fitting. The narrative that Trump didn’t seek to change the status quo, but instead to become the very embodiment of the problems he campaigned against. This is further reinforced by the comments about Trump’s reported statements like, “the law is for chumps.” It creates a sense of detachment from the very principles of fairness and the equal application of the law.
The reactions are a mix of shock and utter predictability. The idea of a president, pardoning convicted felons is viewed as an abomination by many. The fact that many Republicans are being pardoned is also noted. The phrase, “Game recognize game,” is used to sum it all up, implying a camaraderie amongst those who have seemingly violated the law.
It’s about loyalty and favors. The suggestion is that, those in positions of power are willing to protect those who have committed crimes if they are connected to them, and if the price is right. Trump’s involvement in these situations fuels the narrative that he protects those who can aid in future grifting. The phrase “mob boss gonna mob boss” speaks volumes about the perception of Trump’s actions.
The comments also reflect on what is perceived as a low level of political knowledge. The “I never heard of the guys” line is used to characterize this. Some are speculating that Trump may be unaware of who these people are, even those that are directly involved with his actions. But, the consistent use of pardons, along with his supporters, suggests an orchestrated effort to protect certain people.
This entire situation underlines a crisis of trust in the system. The power of the pardon is being questioned. The comments highlight the fact that the pardons are a way to reward loyalty and benefit those who are aligned with Trump’s political agenda. It is an indictment of the system itself, a question of how to prevent abuses of power and ensure that justice is truly blind. It calls for reform and, perhaps, the reevaluation of the very principles upon which the system is built.