By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article raises concerns regarding the potential for widespread lawlessness within the Trump administration, particularly in light of allegations against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth involving potentially illegal “kill orders.” Should these allegations prove true, they would be a clear violation of federal law, but the author suggests Hegseth may be protected by a presidential pardon, due to Trump’s history of pardoning allies. The author emphasizes that without consequences, there is little incentive for those within the administration to adhere to legal and ethical standards, especially given the historical context of prior presidential pardons and a hyper-partisan climate. The author concludes that the pardon power itself should be amended or eliminated.
Read the original article here
The discussion around the potential for widespread pardons by a former president and the implications for the rule of law is a chilling one. It’s a hypothetical scenario, but the more we look at it, the more plausible it becomes. The core question boils down to this: if someone in a position of power believes they can evade consequences for their actions, what stops them from abusing that power?
The case of Pete Hegseth serves as a stark example. Allegations, if true, point towards potentially illegal actions, yet the prevalent sentiment is that he has little to worry about. Why? Because the former president has demonstrated a clear willingness to protect his allies through pardons. This establishes a dangerous precedent. If the rule of law becomes flexible, bending to the whims of those in power, then what safeguard is there?
Let’s consider the broader implications. The hypothetical of blanket pardons for an entire administration isn’t just a thought experiment; it’s a reflection of concerns about an erosion of accountability. If those serving in the government believe they are shielded from legal repercussions, what incentive do they have to act ethically or within the bounds of the law? Why wouldn’t they engage in potentially illegal activities if they believe a pardon is guaranteed? This is a recipe for unchecked corruption and abuse of power.
The very existence of the pardon power is now under scrutiny. While it has its historical justifications, it’s increasingly clear that the potential for abuse is immense. The checks and balances that were once presumed to exist, like the threat of impeachment, seem fragile in the face of intense political polarization. The possibility that those charged with upholding the law will be unwilling or unable to hold those in power accountable poses a grave threat to the principles of justice.
The limits of pardons are also crucial. Pardons, we know, apply only to federal crimes, not state or international ones. However, a future administration could potentially work with international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) to pursue accountability. This highlights the importance of international cooperation in the face of potentially corrupt governments. The challenge lies in the political will of future leaders to act in this manner.
The concept of a former president using the pardon power as a carrot to encourage loyalty and further illegal actions is deeply troubling. This raises the specter of a leader who views the law as a tool to be manipulated, not as a standard to be upheld. If those surrounding a leader are aware of this, the potential for ever-increasing lawlessness is clear. As more and more actions that once were seen as red lines become acceptable, the fabric of democratic society becomes thinner and weaker.
The lack of accountability within the government is another disturbing factor. If individuals like Hegseth are alleged to be carrying out actions that violate the law and yet face no consequences, it is a sign that the very system that is supposed to protect us is broken. When actions are carried out with impunity, who will stop the next act of illegal behavior?
The question of motivation is key. If there are no consequences for wrongdoing, then the motivation to violate the rule of law on behalf of someone in power becomes overwhelming. Fear of retribution and a desire for personal gain are powerful motivators. A system that removes those constraints is an open invitation for corruption and tyranny. The original purpose for the pardon power was not to create opportunities for a leader to protect those who act illegally on their behalf. The debate is now on how to limit or abolish a tool that has fallen into disrepute.