By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Joaquin Guzman Lopez, son of the notorious drug kingpin “El Chapo,” pleaded guilty to U.S. drug trafficking charges, following his brother’s plea deal. As part of his guilty plea, Guzman Lopez acknowledged overseeing the transport of vast quantities of drugs, including fentanyl, into the U.S. He faces at least a 10-year prison sentence. His plea deal included details of a surprising arrest with another Sinaloa leader on U.S. soil.
Read the original article here
Son of drug kingpin ‘El Chapo’ pleads guilty in US drug trafficking case in deal with prosecutors, and the immediate reaction seems to be a collective, almost weary, sigh. A sigh, and then a very, very predictable question: When’s the pardon coming? It’s almost as if everyone has the script memorized. A high-profile guilty plea from a member of a notorious cartel? That’s just the prelude. The real show begins when the negotiations for release, or at least a significant reduction in sentence, commence.
The air is thick with cynicism, and for good reason. The whispers of “pardon” are everywhere, laced with the unspoken understanding that the wheels of justice can be greased, and sometimes, those wheels run on a hefty dose of cash. The mention of specific political figures and their potential involvement feels less like speculation and more like a foregone conclusion. The idea that a donation, or a “contribution” to a certain ballroom, could smooth the path to freedom is tossed around with alarming ease.
The prevailing sentiment is that this is less about justice and more about a transaction. A deal where a guilty plea is merely the starting point for a bigger negotiation. The expectation that a pardon could be swiftly delivered is unsettlingly prevalent, highlighting a pervasive distrust in the integrity of the system. The speed at which some people anticipate the possibility of a presidential pardon underscores a deep-seated cynicism about how power, influence, and wealth intersect within the legal landscape.
It’s difficult to ignore the historical context that has brought this cynicism to the fore. There’s a persistent awareness of past events and decisions that contribute to the current atmosphere of suspicion. The fact that certain family members were reportedly allowed into the U.S., presumably under a specific arrangement, is seen as a key data point in the overall context of this situation. This is not just about one individual; it’s about a pattern, a perceived willingness to trade favors and influence for personal or political gain.
The focus also shifts to the practical aspects of this deal. There’s a certain amount of dark humor, a grim acceptance of how things are expected to play out. The discussion quickly becomes about the specifics: how much money is involved, the timing of the “donation,” and even the exact phrasing of the pardon. It’s almost a cynical game, where everyone seems to know the rules and the predictable moves on the chessboard of corruption.
The mention of “bribes” and “paid protection programs” is a reminder of the power and influence that cartels wield, and the potential for abuse of the legal system by those with money and connections. The implication is that justice can be bought, and that the promise of a “get out of jail free” card is always within reach for those with the resources to obtain it. The discussion isn’t just about the current case; it also considers the ongoing failure to genuinely solve the drug problem.
The underlying question becomes: Is this just a game of whack-a-mole, with individual dealers taking the fall while the larger issues of drug trafficking persist? The lack of faith in the system is palpable; there’s the unspoken sense that this plea deal may not actually deter drug trafficking, and it may not serve the larger interest of fighting the war on drugs. There is a sense of something much larger going on, an observation that the legal system is not immune to the gravitational pull of wealth and influence.
The focus inevitably turns towards the perceived role of a former U.S. president. The idea that this person could intervene and potentially alter the outcome of the case is a central component of this overall narrative. The potential for a pardon is treated as a near certainty, almost a punchline, emphasizing the perceived corruption and cronyism. This reinforces the notion that the rich and powerful are subject to a different set of rules.
The anticipation of a pardon is not just about the son, it is about the broader system and the concerns it elicits. This is a critique of the system, a reflection of the loss of faith in institutions and the pervasive feeling that justice is not blind but, instead, heavily influenced by money and power. The question, ultimately, is not if there will be a pardon, but when.