Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump’s unprecedented Jan. 6 pardons send a clear message

Published

on

Trump’s unprecedented Jan. 6 pardons send a clear message

Less than 24 hours after taking the presidential oath of office for a second time, Donald Trump made good on his promise to grant clemency to the people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. With a stroke of his pen, he tried to turn insurrectionists into patriots and people who tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power into heroes.

On Monday, Trump pardoned about 1,500 Jan. 6 offenders and commuted the sentences of 14 people people convicted of crimes related to the insurrection. He did so over strenuous objections not only from Democrats, but also from people like U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, who noted that his opposition “is not about any particular president.”

“What message does that send to police officers across this nation,” Manger asked, “if someone doesn’t think that a conviction for an assault or worse against a police officer is something that should be upheld?”

Trump’s pardons are unprecedented — but not because he is granting mercy to rebels. He is not the first or only American president to do so. Indeed, at the birth of the Republic, Alexander Hamilton foresaw just such a use of the pardon power. As Hamilton put it in Federalist 74:

In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterward to recall.

Federalist 74

Trump’s pardon of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists turns this vision on its head. As one of the first acts of his presidency, it certifies his view that we are two nations, not one. Instead of restoring “the tranquility of the commonwealth,” the pardons inflict a fresh wound even as they invite us all to relive a national trauma.

Contrast Trump’s pardons with those George Washington issued on Nov. 2, 1795. That day, he spared two men who were convicted of treason and sentenced to death for their part in the so-called Whiskey Rebellion.

One month later, in his seventh State of the Union address (a speech Hamilton helped to write), Washington explained why he had exercised the president’s clemency power. “It appears to me,” he said, “no less consistent with the public good than it is with my personal feelings to mingle in the operations of Government every degree of moderation and tenderness which the national justice, dignity, and safety may permit.”

The result, Washington claimed in an echo of Federalist 74, was that “the part of our country which was lately the scene of disorder and insurrection now enjoys the blessings of quiet and order.

On Dec. 25, 1868, another president showed mercy to rebels. Shortly before the end of his term, President Andrew Johnson pardoned all the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War. He took this action, he wroteto “renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole, and their respect for and attachment to the national [e.g., federal] government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good.”

Neither Washington nor Johnson made clemency a campaign issue. Not so Donald Trump.

Neither Washington nor Johnson denied the truth about the rebellions that occasioned their acts of mercy or diminished the seriousness of what those they pardoned had done. Not so Donald Trump. Just to pick one example, in 2022 he labeled the story of what happened on Jan. 6 “the insurrection hoax,” a “grotesquely false, fabricated, and hysterical partisan narrative” and “a lot of crap.”

In offering those pardons, neither Washington nor Johnson attacked the justice system or their political opponents. Not so Donald Trump. The president has said repeatedly that the radical left is using the events of Jan. 6 as a “pretext for their all-out war on free speech.” And he called the rioters “Americans who were denied due process and unfairly prosecuted by the weaponized Department of Justice.”

And neither Washington nor Johnson made clemency a campaign issue. Not so Donald Trump, who was the first person ever to make the promise of pardons a central part of their presidential campaign. In doing so, the president asked voters to endorse his revisionist view of what happened on Jan. 6.

Trump’s effort to erase the truth of what the “J6 warriors” did from the legal record reflects a view of the pardon power that was much more common in the republic’s early days and in Andrew Johnson’s time than it is now. In an 1866 Supreme Court ruling, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote that a pardon “releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that, in the eye of the law, the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted … it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.”

Field repeated that understanding six years later, this time writing for a unanimous court: A “pardon not merely releases the offender from the punishment prescribed for the offense … it obliterates in legal contemplation the offense itself.”

But unlike Trump, the 19th-century court still acknowledged that pardons cannot undo history. They do not and cannot “alter the actual fact” of what their recipients did to necessitate clemency.

As leaders of the advocacy group Public Citizen suggested earlier this month, “The incoming administration believes that their word trumps historical facts.” But much to his chagrin, even Trump cannot turn the pardon power into a tool to “alter the actual fact[s]” of Jan. 6.

There is one other way that Trump’s pardons depart from Hamilton’s view of the pardon power: the simple fact he did it on his first day. Pardoning the Jan. 6 insurrectionists on Jan. 20 offers a startling preview of the president’s second-term governing philosophy. He did it not despite the hard feelings that would accompany that act but because of those hard feelings. The pardons send what Jacob Ware, a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, calls “‘a thundering message of permission’ for the use of violence for political gain and election denialism at home and overseas.”

With polls indicating sharp partisan divisions about the merits of clemency for the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, the president’s action will divide, not unify. It will inflame divisions, not heal them. That possibility does not bode well for a country already on edge and divided into warring camps. Worse still, as The Washington Post reportsthere may be more to come: “Trump’s attorney general could also drop charges against the roughly 300 defendants still awaiting trial, some of whom have sought to postpone those proceedings until after the presidential inauguration.” But even if that does not come to pass, what Trump did on his first day in office has Alexander Hamilton rolling over in his grave.

Austin Sarat

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. The views expressed here do not represent Amherst College.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Judge orders federal government to restore funding for $16B New York-New Jersey rail tunnel project

Published

on

Judge orders federal government to restore funding for $16B New York-New Jersey rail tunnel project

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore funding to a new rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey on Friday, ruling just as construction was set to shut down on the massive infrastructure project.

The decision came months after the administration announced it was halting $16 billion in support for the project, citing the then-government shutdown and what a top federal budget official said were concerns about unconstitutional spending around diversity, equity and inclusion principles.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas in Manhattan approved a request by New York and New Jersey for a temporary restraining order barring the administration from withholding the funds while the states seek a preliminary injunction that would keep the money flowing while their lawsuit plays out in court.

“The Court is also persuaded that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs have adequately shown that the public interest would be harmed by a delay in a critical infrastructure project.”

The White House and U.S. Department of Transportation did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Friday night.

New York Attorney General Letitia James called the ruling “a critical victory for workers and commuters in New York and New Jersey.”

“I am grateful the court acted quickly to block this senseless funding freeze, which threatened to derail a project our entire region depends on,” James said in a statement. “The Hudson Tunnel Project is one of the most important infrastructure projects in the nation, and we will keep fighting to ensure construction can continue without unnecessary federal interference.”

The panel overseeing the project, the Gateway Development Commission, had said work would stop late Friday afternoon because of the federal funding freeze, resulting in the immediate loss of about 1,000 jobs as well as thousands of additional jobs in the future.

It was not immediately clear when work would resume. In a nighttime statement, the commission said: “As soon as funds are released, we will work quickly to restart site operations and get our workers back on the job.”

The new tunnel is meant to ease strain on an existing, over 110-year-old tunnel that connects New York and New Jersey for Amtrak and commuter trains, where delays can lead to backups up and down the East Coast.

New York and New Jersey sued over the funding pause this week, as did the Gateway Development Commission, moving to restore the Trump administration’s support.

The suspension was seen as way for the Trump administration to put pressure on Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, whom the White House was blaming for a government shutdown last year. The shutdown was resolved a few weeks later.

Speaking to the media on Air Force One, Trump was asked about reports that he would unfreeze funding for the tunnel project if Schumer would agree to a plan to rename Penn Station in New York and Dulles International Airport in Virginia after Trump.

“Chuck Schumer suggested that to me, about changing the name of Penn Station to Trump Station. Dulles Airport is really separate,” Trump responded.

Schumer responded on social media: “Absolute lie. He knows it. Everyone knows it. Only one man can restart the project and he can restart it with the snap of his fingers.”

At a hearing in the states’ lawsuit earlier in Manhattan, Shankar Duraiswamy, of the New Jersey attorney general’s office, told the judge that the states need “urgent relief” because of the harm and costs that will occur if the project is stopped.

“There is literally a massive hole in the earth in North Bergen,” he said, referring to the New Jersey city and claiming that abandoning the sites, even temporarily, “would pose a substantial safety and public health threat.”

Duraiswamy said the problem with shutting down now is that even a short stoppage would cause longer delays because workers will be laid off and go off to other jobs and it’ll be hard to quickly remobilize if funding becomes available. And, he added, “any long-term suspension of funding could torpedo the project.”

Tara Schwartz, an assistant U.S. attorney arguing for the government, disagreed with the “parade of horribles” described by attorneys for the states.

She noted that the states had not even made clear how long the sites could be maintained by the Gateway Development Commission. So the judge asked Duraiswamy, and he said they could maintain the sites for a few weeks and possibly a few months, but that the states would continue to suffer irreparable harm because trains would continue to run late because they rely on an outdated tunnel.

___

Collins reported from Hartford, Connecticut.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump reopens Atlantic Ocean monument to commercial fishing

Published

on

Trump reopens Atlantic Ocean monument to commercial fishing

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on Friday reopening a huge swath of protected sea in the Atlantic Ocean to commercial fishing.

Trump said the move would reestablish fishing in Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the New England coast, a nearly 5,000-square-mile preserve east of Cape Cod that was created by former President Barack Obama. Trump rolled back protections in the area in 2020 and President Joe Biden later restored them.

Trump’s proclamation is his latest move to try to strengthen U.S. fishing while rolling back existing conservation measures. He signed a broader order earlier this year that calls on the federal government to reduce the regulatory burden on fishermen in the coming weeks.

Trump has long been critical of the marine monument, which Obama described at the time as a chance to protect vulnerable undersea corals and ecosystems. Trump has described it as an unfair penalty on commercial fishermen.

The president wrote in Friday’s proclamation that he believed “appropriately managed commercial fishing would not put the objects of historic and scientific interest that the monument protects at risk.”

Trump signaled that he would restore fishing in the area in May. The White House said at the time the move would “support the vital Maine lobster industry by ensuring unfettered access to the coastal waters of the United States.”

Trump has frequently linked his support of fishing rights in the monument to Maine fishermen, though the protected area is located southeast of Cape Cod.

Commercial fishing groups have long sought the reopening of the protected area and voiced support on Friday.

“We deserve to be rewarded, not penalized,” said John Williams, president and owner of the New Bedford, Massachusetts-based Atlantic Red Crab Company. “We’re demonstrating that we can fish sustainably and continue to harvest on a sustainable level in perpetuity.”

Environmental groups have been highly critical of the move to reopen the monument to fishing. Some have vowed to fight it in court.

“The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was created to provide strong protections for the wide range of marine life that live in these unique habitats,” said Gib Brogan, fisheries campaign director at environmental group Oceana.

Environmentalists also challenged a Trump move last year that they say removes important protections from the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument off Hawaii. That is a much larger marine monument created by President George W. Bush in 2009 and later expanded by Obama. A judge blocked commercial fishing in the area in August.

___

This story has been corrected to say that President Donald Trump’s declaration on reopening protected parts of the Atlantic Ocean to commercial fishing was a proclamation, not an executive order.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Energy chief says coal plant orders helped during winter storm

Published

on

Energy chief says coal plant orders helped during winter storm

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration said Friday that its use of emergency orders to keep aging coal-fired plants operating helped prevent a major blackout from power shortages during the brutally frigid weather that has gripped most of America for the past two weeks.

Scattered outages occurred because of ice accumulation that felled local power lines, leaving hundreds of thousands without power, at least briefly. But the nation’s regional power grids generally maintained reliable electricity service, with natural gas and coal leading the way, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials said.

“The big picture story is where we actually got energy from during this storm,” Wright said at a news conference at the Energy Department. “In fact, we had times where our existing capacity couldn’t deliver anything and the lights would have gone out if not for emergency orders.’’

Critics said Wright’s comments understated the role that wind and solar power played during the storm, adding that the administration’s orders over the past nine months to keep some oil and coal-fired plants open past their planned retirement dates could cost U.S. utility customers billions of dollars over the next few years.

In the lead-up to the storm and cold temperatures, Wright also excused utilities from pollution limits on fossil fuel-fired plants and ordered that backup generators at data centers and other large facilities be available to grid operators and utilities to supply emergency power.

Trump administration’s ‘way of doing business’

Deputy Energy Secretary James Danly drew a contrast with the grid performance during a similar severe storm in 2021, calling the Trump administration’s approach a “new way of doing business” during power emergencies.

“The bottom line here is that we managed to ensure that there was sufficient capacity,” Danly said. “Not one area had a blackout or a forced outage due to loss of capacity.”

There were nearly 1 million outages during the storm’s peak, but most were not long-lasting, Danly said. Nearly 55,000 customers were without power as of Friday, including more than 17,000 in Mississippi and 7,000 in Texas, according to the outage tracking website poweroutage.us.

Wright cited statistics showing that natural gas — long the nation’s leading source of electricity — provided 43% of electric power at peak generation during the storm, followed by coal at 24% and nuclear at 15%. Renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower provided a combined 14%, Wright said.

Wright and President Donald Trump have frequently made the case for their fossil fuel-friendly orders, blaming the Biden administration and Democratic-leaning states for policies they say threaten the reliability of the nation’s electric grid and drive up electricity bills.

The proportion of coal and natural gas power rose substantially during the storm, while the proportion of wind power used during the storm dropped by 40%, Wright said. Solar stayed flat at a fraction of the amount of coal and natural gas power.

Wright dismissed solar as “meaningless” during a severe storm in certain regions and said, “It’s not an all-weather power source.”

Pushback on orders to keep coal plants running

Some state and utility officials have chafed at Wright’s orders to keep plants operating, saying they’re not necessary for emergency power and are simply raising electric bills for regular ratepayers to keep relatively expensive plants operating.

Preventing the nation’s coal plants from retiring over the next three years could cost consumers at least $3 billion per year, according to a report from Grid Strategies, a consulting firm.

“A lot of these plants were retiring because they’re no longer economic to operate,” said Michael Goggin, an executive vice president at Grid Strategies. “It’s expensive to keep them going.”

Opponents have challenged the coal orders in court, arguing that Congress intended for emergency powers to be used only in rare, temporary cases.

The nonprofit owners of the Craig Generating Station in Colorado, the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and Platte River Power Authority, last week filed a protest with the Energy Department seeking to reverse Wright’s order to keep its Unit 1 operating. The Dec. 30 order came one day before it was to shut down.

In its request for a rehearing, the nonprofits said its members and communities were unfairly being forced to pay to keep a costly and unreliable plant operating and that the department didn’t even comply with the law requiring it to show why this was the best alternative. They also said the department’s order unfairly punished them for the mistakes of other utilities.

Wright brushed off the criticism, saying there would be “far larger costs from blackouts.”

Solar and wind said to save consumers ‘billions’

Clean energy advocates said that renewable sources saved consumers billions during the storm and helped ensure the lights stayed on, especially in regions that have significant investments in wind, solar, and energy storage.

In Texas, wind, solar and storage provided about 25% of power for the grid’s 27 million customers — a major increase over 2021 and a key reason blackouts were largely avoided, said John Hensley, a senior vice president at the American Clean Power Association, an industry group.

Wind and solar also accounted for significant power in the Midwest and Southwest, Hensley said. In the mid-Atlantic region served by grid operator PJM, only 5% of power came from wind and solar generation, a fact Hensley blamed on lack of investment in renewables in the region, as well as hostility by the Trump administration to new wind and solar power.

Blaming renewables for not performing during the storm “is like trying to blame someone on the bench for losing the game,” Hensley said. “They didn’t get a chance” to play.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending