By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Jan. 6 rioter, Andrew Paul Johnson, who received a presidential pardon from Donald Trump, has been convicted of serious child sex offenses in Florida. Johnson was found guilty by a jury on five charges, including molesting minors and transmitting harmful materials electronically. Prosecutors stated Johnson attempted to use an anticipated financial payout from the Trump administration as a way to silence one of his victims. Johnson faces a potential life sentence when he is sentenced in March.
Read the original article here
It’s a story that’s unfortunately becoming a recurring theme, isn’t it? We’re seeing a Jan. 6 rioter, someone who received a pardon from former President Trump, now convicted of the abhorrent crime of child molestation. It certainly paints a stark picture, doesn’t it? When you have individuals involved in an event like the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, who are then granted clemency by a president, and subsequently found guilty of such heinous offenses, it raises profound questions about the judgment and the character of those involved.
The fact that this individual was among those pardoned by Trump for actions related to the Jan. 6 events and has now been convicted of child molestation suggests a disturbing pattern. It’s as if the initial act of participating in the riot, and the subsequent pardon, were just prelude to further criminal behavior. This isn’t an isolated incident, either. There’s a palpable sense that many individuals who were granted pardons for their involvement in Jan. 6 are, or have been, entangled in other criminal activities, including these deeply disturbing sex offenses. It certainly makes one wonder if these pardons were, in essence, a form of enabling repeat offenders.
The conversation around Trump’s pardons for Jan. 6 rioters has always been contentious, but this conviction adds a grim new layer. It’s not just about the political implications of pardoning those who stormed the Capitol; it’s about the moral responsibility when those pardoned go on to commit, or are revealed to have committed, other severe crimes. The idea that a president might be seen as inadvertently – or perhaps knowingly – protecting individuals capable of such atrocities, simply because they aligned with a particular political movement or acted in a manner he favored, is a deeply unsettling thought. It brings to mind the idea that Trump may be seen as a protector of those who commit these kinds of offenses, not just those from his past, but potentially enabling future ones through his actions.
There’s a strong sentiment that Trump should be held accountable, perhaps even sued by the victims of the crimes committed by those he pardoned. The argument is that his decision to grant clemency to individuals who then continue to engage in criminal activity, especially something as devastating as child molestation, makes him complicit in some way. It’s a perspective that emphasizes the gravity of leadership and the ripple effects of presidential decisions, suggesting that the buck truly stops at the top when it comes to the consequences of such pardons.
The notion of “catch and release” is brought up, and it feels particularly apt here, but in a far more sinister context. Instead of the usual discussions around immigration, this “catch and release” refers to individuals caught up in criminal behavior being released back into society, and in some cases, enabled by presidential pardons, only to offend again. It’s a cycle of concern, and when the new offenses are as horrific as child molestation, the public’s outrage and demand for accountability understandably escalate.
One can’t help but draw parallels and question the motivations. When individuals with such concerning backgrounds, both in terms of political extremism and now documented predatory behavior, are pardoned, it raises eyebrows. The question of whether Trump would pardon this individual again, given this new conviction, hangs heavy in the air. It’s a question that speaks to a perceived lack of discernment or perhaps a loyalty that supersedes basic moral considerations. It echoes the sentiment that “like voter, like president,” implying a shared set of values or priorities.
The repeated nature of these headlines is also striking. It feels as though we are constantly hearing about another Jan. 6 participant, previously pardoned, now facing charges or convictions for sex crimes. It begs the question: how many are there? Is it a handful, or is this a significant portion of those who benefited from Trump’s clemency? The accumulation of these cases creates a disturbing picture of the individuals involved and the potential wisdom of their pardons. It feels like a grim bingo card of negative traits and criminal behavior.
Ultimately, this conviction serves as a stark reminder that the consequences of political actions can extend far beyond the immediate political sphere. When pardons are granted, and then those individuals are revealed to be, or are convicted of, such grievous offenses, it erodes trust and raises serious ethical concerns about leadership and accountability. It’s a difficult story to digest, but one that highlights the profound importance of ensuring that justice is served, especially for the most vulnerable among us.