By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a symbolic move, Donald Trump has issued pardons for attorneys involved in the 2020 election subversion efforts and dozens of alleged fake electors, as announced by his pardon attorney, Ed Martin. These pardons, though lacking legal weight regarding state charges, are viewed as part of Trump’s broader strategy to downplay his role in the election’s aftermath. Many of those pardoned, including Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, are facing state charges related to the fake elector scheme. This action follows previous reports of Martin’s plans for the pardons, which were meant to support claims that the fake electors did nothing wrong.
Read the original article here
The core issue here is this: Trump is attempting to issue pardons, but they’re essentially fake because he’s trying to pardon people for crimes they might face at the state level. The president of the United States simply does not have the power to pardon individuals for state-level offenses. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate disregard, of the limits of presidential power.
One of the more alarming implications is the potential signal this sends to those who might be involved in illegal activities. It essentially says, “if you commit crimes on my behalf, I’ll try to get you off the hook.” This sort of message could embolden people to take risks they might not otherwise consider, potentially escalating into something far more dangerous.
A crucial point to understand is that accepting a federal pardon can have implications. Some people believe that accepting a pardon is an implicit admission of guilt for the crime in question, because why accept it otherwise? While the legal specifics can get complicated, it’s safe to say that accepting a pardon can be used as evidence against you in related matters. This could mean they are, in fact, admitting fault, which could be used against them in their state trials.
It’s also important to note that these so-called pardons seem to be an effort to send a message to potential supporters for future elections. It’s almost like a recruitment call, saying, “I’ll protect those who are loyal to me.” This kind of behavior does feel like an ongoing disregard for the rule of law. It highlights a troubling trend: the idea that the rules don’t apply to a certain segment of society, or those who are considered loyal.
The situation with the Georgia case, for example, is critical. With Trump’s attempts to issue these pardons, some of his actions can be viewed as an attempt to interfere with state’s rights. The fact that the mainstream media hasn’t clearly explained how these “pardons” accomplish nothing only further highlights the gravity of the situation. It may be viewed as a signal of his belief that state courts will feel pressured by the White House and the Department of Justice.
Then we have the broader context of Trump’s actions. The fact that he is willing to issue these pardons underscores the idea that he believes he is above the law. His actions indicate a belief that he can operate outside the constraints that govern everyone else. This is where the concern about a possible attempted coup comes from. If the system continues to be bent to the will of one man and the laws aren’t followed, what’s to stop the next attempted takeover?
Furthermore, there is the potential damage these actions do to the individuals involved. The fact that Trump’s legal strategy may be damaging to their cases at the state level is disturbing. In the long run, the people who commit crimes to support him may find themselves with no protection. Trump is long in the tooth, as they say, and there’s no guarantee he will be there to help next time.
The reality of this situation is not a story about pardons, it’s a story about the attempted subversion of democratic processes. This goes beyond mere political maneuvering; it involves potential obstruction of justice, and it challenges the very foundations of the American legal system. The fact that it is largely ignored is one of the most alarming aspects of all this. This entire situation is really only a microcosm of a larger problem: the willingness of some to prioritize loyalty over the rule of law.