Organized Crime

Know what you call a crowd that requires 25 pardons to cover their illegal activities of the last 5 years?

As it happens, Trump is mulling the pardons at a juncture when loyalty appears his principal concern, complaining repeatedly over the past weeks that Republicans are deserting him when he needed them to help overturn the election results.

He has largely frozen out those advisers and associates who do not seem on the same page. One person who used to speak to Trump regularly, but who delicately encouraged him to soften his post-election stance, no longer has his calls returned and hasn’t heard from Trump in weeks.

In all, the President is considering pardons for more than two dozen people in his orbit whom he believes were targeted — or could be targeted in the future — for political ends. That’s in addition to hundreds of requests from others who have approached the White House directly, and tens of thousands more whose petitions are pending at the Justice Department.

Organized crime.

97 replies
  1. Rugger9 says:

    Well, now, and combined with the prior post tells me that DJT will try to push the pardon boundaries with blanket pardons on everything. He’ll claim these pardons apply to state litigation as well and dare Biden’s and the other AGs to make him stop.

    Even though we know this will cause significant paralysis in many government functions (and the torrent of pardons is intended to cause such problems) it is very important to do thee investigations as long as it takes. Otherwise we will be doing this again against someone more competent.

    • TooLoose LeTruck says:

      “He’ll claim these pardons apply to STATE LITIGATION as well and dare Biden’s and the other AGs to make him stop.

      Ya know, I’ve been wondering about that very thing, right there…

      I really could see him trying that, especially in regards to his kids and NYS…

      This is going to be crazy as all get out.

    • Chris.EL says:

      Dr. emptywheel, couldn’t find anyone else pointing out this “little” story so here goes…
      [where’s our bmaz these days?]

      from Twitter:
      “The Hoarse Whisperer
      …”The first time I heard a then-$400 million dollars of campaign funds had been siphoned off to a shell company, I knew Trump’s grifting daughter or son-in-law were involved.

      Thieves. May their day of reckoning come swiftly.”
      + Reported on Twitter by:
      …”Glenn Kessler
      EXCLUSIVE: Jared Kushner helped create a Trump campaign shell company that secretly paid the president’s family members and spent $617 million in reelection cash, a source tells Insider via @businessinsider”…

  2. Badger Robert says:

    There will have to be prosecutions, and civil forfeitures. Some of the pardons will have to be challenged. It won’t be fun, but its necessary.

  3. N.E. Brigand says:

    It won’t happen, of course, because at this point anyone left is fully in the Trump tank, but:

    What if the White House or Department of Justice staff assigned to actually write the pardons refused? (Say, on the grounds that they recognize the point you’re making: the sheer breadth of the pardons makes it clear that the pardons themselves are part of a collective criminal activity.) Better yet: tell the president that you’re working on them, all to be issued on January 19, and then when the day comes, say: “Oops, we never did get around to that. Go ahead and fire us for letting you down.” The president could still tweet out or otherwise announce that he had pardoned Jared, Ivanka, Don Jr., etc., but with no carefully crafted language backing him up, there’d be an amazing mess afterwards trying to sort out what was and wasn’t covered, no?

  4. P J Evans says:

    I don’t think we’d go after “his” people for political reasons. There are plenty of criminal reasons to choose from.

        • Mitch Neher says:

          Ralph used the lower-case d–albeit, in a redundant manner. Unless there exist non-democratic voters.

          • Ralph H white says:

            I proffer there is quite a chunk of evidence for millions of non-democratic voters wouldn’t you. If you vote and then call the vote a fraud and not accept the results I would consider that non-democratic. How about you?

            • Fred Fnord says:

              So what you’re saying is ‘the Republican party is of course insane, and the Democratic party won’t accept us holding any Republicans accountable for their actions.’

              Might as well just fold up our democracy and go home, then, right?

          • P J Evans says:

            If I have to spend my time trying to figure out what you you mean, you didn’t write it clearly. And that comment didn’t say what you think it did.

  5. subtropolis says:

    “… whom he believes were targeted … for political ends.“

    Nonsense! I always roll my eyes when I see someone making assertions about what Donald Trump “believes”. It’s far more likely, imho, that he KNOWS that these people broke laws, regardless of how he couches it, even among his close circle. He’s a world-class liar and gaslighter who knows how to avoid incriminating himself. (I didn’t say that he was good at it, mind.) This, all of these poor folks are going to fall prey to the evil Democrats, with their “political” games. It’s transparent bullshit and ought not be repeated by journalists who desire to be considered respectable.

    • PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

      I like how you think, the media is still far too willing to fuck around like this and ascribe fanciful motivations to ruthlessly corrupt decisions

  6. John Lehman says:

    Quite a list of tags there

    Tags: Allen Weisselberg, Bijan Kian, Brad Parscale, Corey Lewandowski, Don Jr., Eric Trump, Erik Prince, Felix Sater, George Papadopoulos, Igor Fruman, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Jason Miller, Jay Sekulow, Jerome Corsi, John Dowd, Keith Schiller, KT McFarland, Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Robert Costello, Roger Stone, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Clovis, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon

    …pardon me boys, is that the Chattanooga choo-choo? …well it sure as hell isn’t the train to glory !!!

  7. John Lehman says:

    “…pardon me boys, is that the Chattanooga choo choo ?”
    25 pardons, wow that’s quite a passenger list there…sure as hell isn’t the train to glory.

    • FL Resister says:

      Actually, that rogue’s gallery would take 27 pardons.
      Won’t William Barr need a pardon too?
      Was glad to hear the House is still pursuing McGahn testimony.
      Is this the year Democrats finally fight back?

  8. graham firchlis says:

    Don the Con
    (to the tune of Mac the Knife, with apologies to Kurt Weill)

    Giuliani, babe, has such briefs, dear,
    And he shows them, black marks on white.
    Lots of pardons, has Don the Con, babe,
    And he’s keeping them out of sight.

    You know when old Rudy fails,
    With his briefs, babe,
    Panicked pleadings spread like a quilt.
    Fancy pens, though, has Don the Con, babe,
    So there’s never, never a trace of guilt.

    Like sidewalk hookers on
    Sunday morning, uh huh,
    Lined up GOPers
    Grind and bump.
    Someone’s squealing,
    like a stuck pig;
    Could that someone be Donald Trump?

    Papadopoulos, hey, Elliot Broidy don’t you know?
    Joe Exotic (WHAT!?!), Assange and Snowdon too?
    Whoever puts up ten mil in cash, down,
    Buys a free pass, while Donald’s still in town.

    Now did you hear, oh, ’bout Michael Flynn, babe?
    Guilt disappeared, and now he’s mouthing trash.
    Here comes Bannon, slavishly begging,
    Could it be they’ve all done something rash?

    Ivanka, Jared, Stephen Miller, uh huh,
    Junior ‘n’ Eric, Manafort are all down.
    There’s a long line on the Right, dear,
    While Don the Con, he is still around.

    Still around…

    Still around…

    Look out! The Con could come back!

  9. Ravenclaw says:

    One thing I don’t get about all this pardon activity. (Quick aside ere I be bashed by the redoubtable bmaz: yes, this is written from a position of relative ignorance & in hope of enlightenment.) If even a few close Trump associates, among those actually involved in either “high crimes & misdemeanors” or ordinary criminal grifts, receive blanket pardons for their activities before & during his “administration,” then don’t they lose the right to refuse to testify against anyone who got left out? So in principle, a federal prosecutor would need only to build a good case against one of those figures who did NOT receive such a pardon (knowing they were all in it together) and summon the pardoned ones to testify before a grand jury or in court (despite knowing the true answers), then prosecute them for perjury and obstruction of justice when they inevitably lie? For that matter, the ex-prez himself?

    • Dave_MB says:

      To a degree that’s true. They can get up on the stand and say I don’t recall. It’s really hard to *make* someone say something they don’t want to say. The exception of course is when you have documentary proof of what the witness said or did.

      It’s not quite as easy as that, but it could creat problems down the road.

  10. Re entry says:

    Can he actually pardon people that have yet to be charged? Would it involve only persons that are being investigated to this point?

    Maybe he’s watching Minority Report a lot

    • N.E. Brigand says:

      Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for “all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.” Nixon hadn’t been charged with any crimes.

      Donald Trump recently pardoned Michael Flynn not only for what he pleaded guilty to but also to any other crimes related to the facts in Flynn’s case before the court as well as for “any and all possible offenses within the investigatory authority or jurisdiction” of Robert Mueller’s investigation, and also for “any and all possible offenses arising out of facts and circumstances known to, identified by, or in any manner related to the investigation” by Mueller.

      • terika says:

        I understand if you take to the originalist view of the Constitution, the pardon clause is subject to a specificity requirement which means the President must specify the specific offenses covered by the order. Nixon’s pardon was never challenged so the question was never closed. This is the 1 time I hope the Supreme Court takes a constitutional originalists view.

        P.s. It is a long time since I commented. I can’t remember what user name or email I last used. :(

        [Welcome back to emptywheel. As far as I can tell, the last time you commented was in 2018 as “theresa.” You might want to stick with “terika” because I think we have more than one “Theresa/Teresa” besides yourself. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  11. joel fisher says:

    You have to wonder if anyone will get pardoned who is simply a reformed felon; the kind of ex-offender pardons are for. Ironically, this set of pardons will identify those who have stories to tell. The country is entitled to know what’s been going on. Time to print up some congressional subpoenas and serve them as the pardons are granted.

    • Mitch Neher says:

      I’m not sure, but . . . I think pardon recipients can be subpoenaed to testify before a Grand Jury . . . If the GJ has at least one “target” and who-knows-how-many “subjects.”

      • emptywheel says:

        I think that’s why this will fail. Unless Trump pardons all the criminals in all the conspiracies, USG will still be able to require testimony. And then the same people who lied in the past will lie in the future.

        It’s one enormous perjury trap set by Donald Trump.

        • dadidoc1 says:

          I agree that Trump is creating perjury traps for the people he is pardoning, but I wonder if it is intentional, inept, or both.

        • Mitch Neher says:

          Whoa! That’s the best electro-shock, ever.

          If no one can be pardoned twice for the same false-statement offense (read as a criminal act), then they’ll all need fresh pardons for every fresh perjury offense “. . . arising out of facts known to the Special Counsel . . .” [paraphrased].

          • Mitch Neher says:

            Oops. Ravenclaw said something on this topic two days ago. It’s just a short scroll upthread from here.

  12. Peterr says:

    Organized crime? I don’t know about that.

    DISorganized crime, I could buy. UNorganized crime, sure. Ransack-the-place-while-we’re-here crime makes sense too.

    But calling it “organized” is giving Trump and his family too much credit.

    • blueedredcounty says:

      Around the time I started reading the emptywheel blog, I found an author online who conjectured that Trump was a confidential informant.

      Prior to this post, I had always hesitated to bring this subject up, because I could never find any other mention or discussion of this theory anywhere. Including in searches on this site. It always seemed like a stretch bordering on conspiracy theory.

      But if Dr. Wheeler can refer to this group and their activities of the last five years (and in the case of Trump himself, his entire life) as organized crime, I don’t think this theory is all that far-fetched.

      • chicago_bunny says:

        Except who is he informing on? Who would they be trying to roll up that is a bigger target? This link is just kook talk.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          I don’t think the link is “kook talk” at all. It is well-researched and resurfaces issues I remember being touched on during the 2015-16 campaign; that these were mostly dropped testifies more to the maelstrom of the past four years than their illegitimacy. As a journalist who has followed the ugly, internecine politics of New York (especially Long Island) for decades, I have long been acquainted with such stories. In fact, what shocked me most about DJT’s first presidential run was that someone I thought of as having a mobbed-up reputation would even try it. I came to the realization that he had washed himself clean in the blood of the network-TV lamb, via The Apprentice, for most Americans. No surprise that we tri-staters refused his dirty offer.

  13. Bobby Gladd says:

    Erratum: In support of Dr. Jill Biden (and all doctoral-level women), I propose we all henceforth consistently address Marcy as Dr. Wheeler when citing her.

  14. Ralph H white says:

    No fifth amendment right for this crowd. Lying under oath to a congress , or judge and jury carries impressive penalties. Some I suspect will happy to oblige investigators, without appearing to eager. They will enjoy the opportunity to get back at trump, because most have perceived reasons for doing so.
    It will be payback for the orange beacon of loyalty.

  15. Peterr says:

    Top of the page headline at Politico:

    ‘We want them infected’: Trump appointee demanded ‘herd immunity’ strategy, emails reveal

    Then-HHS science adviser Paul Alexander called for millions of Americans to be infected as means of fighting Covid-19.

    Alexander might hope to be on this list of potential pardons, to prevent being brought up on manslaughter charges.

    • PeterS says:

      Have you read the emails in full? Surely we should hesitate to criminalise the expression of opinions with which we disagree.

      • Peterr says:

        Yes, I have read the emails, and no, we should not criminalize the expressions of opinions.

        But Alexander is advocating *as policy* that the government act to affirmatively cull the herd, putting an unknown but non-trivial number of people to death. And he advocates this in contradiction with scholarly evidence available since 2007.

        In his July 4, 2020 (11:50am) email he writes “We will know in years the impact of this . . . but there is no evidence, that locking down a healthy, well society, a well group of people actually works.” [Elipses in the original]

        Sorry, but this is crap, and he ought to know it or at least check it before he write stuff like this. As I noted here last Spring, in 1918, St. Louis locked down in the face of the 1918 flu epidemic, and Philadelphia did not. The impact on St. Louis was relatively minor, while the impact on Philadelphia was . . . not. Locking down a healthy society kept people alive, far better than letting the virus run wild.

        Full peer-reviewed 2007 PNAS paper here.

        But maybe you are right, that manslaughter is not the correct charge. Perhaps conspiracy to commit negligent homicide on a mass scale would be the proper charge he should fear. I regret my error.

        I just wish Alexander would do the same with his.

        • zeke says:

          I think we only need to look at the consequences suffered by the architects of the Iraq war to predict what will happen to this crowd.

            • zeke says:

              I actually wonder if it wouldn’t be best that Rosen appoint a special counsel to go after Hunter Biden; perhaps that would bring the extent to which the DoJ has been weaponised into a sharper focus. Not because I think that Joe Biden is vindictive, but because it might be a more graphic illustration of what happens when there is no accountability and norms are continually allowed to erode. The idea of “looking forward rather than backward” is a nice sentiment, but only if it is certain that the trouble will remain behind you. That wasn’t the case when Obama took over, and it certainly isn’t the case now. Another lesson that the democrats never seem to learn, but maybe this time Lucy won’t pull the ball out.

              (Ha! Just kidding. Of course she will).

        • PeterS says:

          I agree with your sentiments although, sadly, policies of inaction that lead to the deaths of a large number of (unknown) people are nothing new. I don’t know at what number a policy becomes legally problematic.

        • punaise says:

          Ooh, I bet you’re wonderin’ how I knew
          ‘Bout your plans to give me the flu
          With some other guy you knew before
          Before we all get doses you know the mask I wore

          It took me by surprise I must say
          When I found out yesterday
          Don’tcha know that I…
          Herd, it’s in the pipeline
          Not much longer would you be immune
          Oh, herd, it through the pipeline
          Oh I’m just about to lose my mind
          Honey, honey yeah

  16. Daniel Shane says:

    We all know the real reason for the pardons. He is so predictable. The pardons are being used as bribes by the corrupt and criminal President of the United States to insure the silence of his cronies in prison or likely to go to prison who know DJT’s and family secrets of crimes and maybe even treason or sedition. There are lots of pardons because he has a lot of evil people and criminals who worked for him in the past or are working for him in the present.

  17. Savage Librarian says:

    Pardon me sir,
    did it ever occur
    to a real live churl,
    What could be harmful
    in hiding an armful
    Of graft to squirrel?

    Pardon me if a transactional squeeze
    Fogs up my goggles
    and buckles my knees,
    I’m simply drowned in the sound
    And the sight and the scent
    And the feel of a real live churl.

    Nothing can beat
    getting swept off your feet
    By a real live churl,
    Dreams of a punk
    don’t compare with the bunk
    Of a real live churl,
    Churls were too churlish
    was once my belief,
    What a reversal and what a relief!
    I’ll take a Fedora hat
    and the towering heel
    And the deal of a real live churl.

    (With apologies and all due respect to Cy Coleman and Carolyn Leigh )

    “Real Live Girl” – Little Me Piano Karaoke Backing Track – Key: G

  18. Mesquite says:

    I was talking with spouse a month ago, right after the Flynn pardon. I asked if she thought Trump would pardon 100 henchmen, more, or less. She couldn’t believe more than a couple,was blown away. So I took the under and went with 50 as my prediction. Not looking too bad at this point. Anyone want to go with the over and take 100 as their prediction? Wade

    • Troutwaxer says:

      I’d guess in the 10-15 range. Any of the kids who needs a pardon will get one, plus Rudy and Jared and maybe a couple other people. But Trump is well-known for screwing people over and not seeing what the long-term issues look like, so I’m guessing that there will be a dozen or so people who don’t get pardons who probably “deserved them” for the help they gave Trump

  19. viget says:

    Well, thank you Marcy for saying this. It’s actually TOC, Transnational Organized Crime. And Russia, UAE, KSA, Turkey, and Bibi are all in on it.

    Check out House of Trump, House of Putin by Craig Unger. He was born into a TOC family.

  20. AndTheSlithyToves says:

    Thank you, Dr. Wheeler!
    Was searching around on Cheri Jacobus’ twitter feed–wherein she talks about what a ratings bonanza it would be for all the derelict networks if they ran with non-stop Congressional hearings on Trump Administration crimes–when I ran into this little gem from Cheri to Low-Energy Jeb:
    Cheri Jacobus | @CheriJacobus
    Bill Barr nearly destroyed this country and belongs in prison. He obstructed justice, lied about what was in The Mueller Report, and worse.
    Please stop @JebBush. Just. Stop
    Jeb Bush | @JebBush
    Dec 14
    Bill Barr is a man of great integrity. Strangely, it is a good sign to be criticized by progressives if you are protecting executive powers and by the President if you aren’t intervening in the election process. I appreciate his misunderstood leadership.
    11:33 PM · Dec 15, 2020·Twitter Web App

      • Raven Eye says:

        To many observers here, Barr looks like a burglar moving back and forth between DOJ and the White House with a bag over his shoulder. To Jeb, that same person looks like Santa Claus.

        (We can stretch this a little and ponder how unfortunate it is to have DeJoy as “Rudolf” at the head of Santa’s sleigh…)

      • AndTheSlithyToves says:

        Barr undoubtedly knows about/remembers Florida Gov Jeb’s horrible manipulation of “the Florida’s state pension fund which lost $335 million from its Enron holdings. Enron has spread lavish campaign donations on local politicians, including Mr. Bush. Earlier this month, Mr. Bush startled some by holding a fundraiser at the Houston home of a former Enron executive. Florida is also home to thousands of Enron investors and retired employees, who have seen their Enron shares become worthless” –NYT 1-27-2002.

  21. chris says:

    I’m no attorney, but it seems that RICO was tailor-made for the Trump Crime Family.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your fourth or fifth user name; you’ve used ack/ackack/other-variant-of-your-real-name previously. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      That Trump might be the head of an organized crime family does not mean that RICO is a useful tool to get at his crimes. There are more obvious and easier to prove crimes that Trump might have engaged in, for which RICO is a distracting catch-all.

  22. Mitch Neher says:

    But, but . . . The forbidden acronym! It’s still forbidden–isn’t it??

    Wait! I can’t find my bite-stick. Oh! Zap me anyhow.

  23. Jenny says:

    Appropriate title, “Organized Crime.”

    “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse.”
    “Behind every successful fortune there is a crime.”
    “Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.”
    “Revenge is a dish that tastes best when served cold.”
    “We are all honorable men here, we do not have to give each other assurances as if we were lawyers.”
    ― Mario Puzo, The Godfather

  24. Raven Eye says:

    Some time around the 20th or 21st of January, Biden should sign a Presidential Memo suspending the security clearances of all those pardoned, and of anyone else closely associated with a wide range of Trumpian activities. Following that, a case-by-case review.

    There are administrative procedures for denying a clearance and appealing that action, but the President is the ultimate Original Classification Authority. Biden having the authority to take direct measures to protect National Security is certainly something that Barr would agree with 100%.

    The top ten reasons for clearances being denied in 2016 were financial considerations, personal conduct, drug involvement, foreign influence, criminal conduct, alcohol consumption, foreign preference, handling protected information, use of IT systems, and sexual behavior. Some of those categories can be further broken down to include things like unexplained income, know associates, etc. Recall how Judge Sullivan was very clear that Flynn’s pardon did not mean that he didn’t commit the illegal acts. (Flynn will be of long term interest to hostile intelligence gatherers (HIGs) who certainly took notice of his defense which evolved into admitting that he was easily susceptible to even moderate interrogation techniques.)

    In the federal government, and the contractors and consultants that support the government, clearances are currency. Your amount of pay, or your ability to even get employment, is conditional of having the right clearance. It is not uncommon that every person in a workspace (GSers, military, contractor, or custodial staff) is required to have a Top Secret clearance just to show up at work every day.

    • P J Evans says:

      back in the 70s, I worked at a company where just about everyone had a secret clearance – there were three people who had TS, and they were all high-level management. (I think my father had TS for most if not all his career, and, as needed, a Q clearance.)

      • Raven Eye says:

        Folks leaving Trump administration through that revolving door will be looking at a number of different employment options, depending on their backgrounds and interests. But one favorite, especially for the higher-ups, is the “strategic hire”. That’s where a contractor or consulting firm doesn’t hire against a current or upcoming contract. Rather, they bring the person in (and charge against the firm itself) because of what or who they know. If you don’t have a clearance, you’re not as marketable.

    • Fran of the North says:

      Quoth the Raven: “Suspend all security clearances of those pardoned”.

      That the Grifters-in-Waiting have had TS level security, even when they wouldn’t be qualified to work as a janitor in a secure facility, has been a travesty of epic proportion.

      Classified information is worth money, even for those of noble intent. Thus the significant vetting that takes place. When the holder of that information has no scruples other than leveraging any asset to generate cash, the mind reels.

  25. pjb says:

    I’ve got a different question than about pre-emptive or blanket pardons. I am wondering about the efficacy of secret pardons. In other words, is there anything to suggest the President could not grant pardons without public disclosure? It seems to me that this could play out as follows: secretly pardoned person is under federal criminal investigation. Prosecutor advises defense counsel of his investigative status, defense counsel says “you cannot obtain a conviction, here’s the pardon.” Prosecutor then has little choice but to drop the confidential investigation, and as per US Attorney Manual, makes no comment about the investigation (including acknowledging the impaneling of a grand jury). No accountability for the malefactor, no public opprobrium, no one is any the wiser. Is any of this remotely possible? And if so, why wouldn’t it be the preferred mode of pardon grant?

    • Mitch Neher says:

      The subject of secret pardons was bandied about way-back in 2017:

      Sep 11, 2017 · A Democratic congressman has introduced a bill that would force the White House to announce any presidential pardons publicly within three days of being granted . . .

        • pjb says:

          Thanks for that link! The Congressman who stated “Long-term secrecy is not the danger because if authorities ever attempt to file charges or pass a sentence, the pardon would come to light” I think misses the point. The “authorities” will not attempt to file charges if notified privately during a grand jury investigation and no one would have any idea there were no charges because of a presidential pardon versus lack of evidence of criminal activity.

    • skua says:

      AIUI a new Presdnt would have the power to make public any secret pardon/s.

      Which addresses the future. But not any past cases of a secret pardon being used to thwart prosecution.

  26. Ken Muldrew says:

    Looks like Jared’s black market pals are back in business
    (link broken after the “//”)
    I would suggest the charitable idea that this is a clever ploy to make the vaccine appear to be a luxury good, thereby driving up the demand from those who are fearful or misinformed, but the chances of this crew doing anything that isn’t personally enriching is zero.

  27. Chris.EL says:

    Something interesting here from Courthousenews .com “Florida Court Clerks Charge Unaccounted Millions Through For-Profit Web Company”: …”Every time an attorney files a lawsuit, a couple submits divorce papers, or a parent makes a child support payment, and pays with a credit card, this company, CiviTek, charges a 3.5% convenience fee — raking in tens of millions of dollars a year.”…

    Supreme Court opinions due today at 10:00 am (must be ET) it’s 5:45 am here in California. Wonder what cases are up?

  28. Badger Robert says:

    There will be at least dozens of pardons, if not Andrew Johnson level pardons. The arguments about the scope of the pardons will be endless and exhausting.
    By the time President elect Biden takes office there will be more than 330,000 Covid/19 deaths. The pardons will have to be litigated.

Comments are closed.