Latest / Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast / DDH - Pardon Moi?

Transcript

DDH - Pardon Moi? · Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast

• 0:00
  History is strange, it's alien, and it won't give us what we
• 0:04
  would like to have. Tuesdays, 8:00.
• 0:08
  Dave, does history on Bill Mick live.
• 0:10
  And with presidential pardons having become news in recent
• 0:16
  days, good time to take a look back and look at this pardon
• 0:20
  power through history. Dave, how are we going to look
• 0:22
  at this thing? In 1794, there was a simmering
• 0:27
  discontent in the Backcountry of Pennsylvania that boiled over
• 0:33
  into an outright insurrection. Farmers, a real 1 farmers and
• 0:40
  distillers, outraged by federal tax on whiskey, refused to pay
• 0:45
  it and they took up arms against tax collectors.
• 0:49
  This was not just an isolated act of defiance, it was a full
• 0:52
  blown insurrection that tested the very foundation of the very
• 0:55
  young United States government. President George Washington,
• 1:00
  faced with the most serious internal threats since the
• 1:03
  Revolution, made an unprecedented decision, one that
• 1:07
  has never been repeated. He personally LED a militia
• 1:11
  force of 13,000 troops to suppress the rebellion in
• 1:15
  Western Pennsylvania. But what happened after the guns
• 1:18
  were lowered is even more remarkable, and it introduces us
• 1:22
  to one of the most powerful and controversial tools of the
• 1:25
  presidency. In the aftermath of the
• 1:28
  rebellion, Washington faced a choice.
• 1:31
  He could press the full weight of federal law against the
• 1:34
  rebels, making examples of those who defied the government.
• 1:37
  Two men who had been convicted of treason in the in the
• 1:41
  rebellion had been sentenced to death, and they were the symbols
• 1:45
  of the resistance. Their execution would have sent
• 1:47
  a strong message about the power of the new federal government to
• 1:50
  enforce its laws. But Washington chose a different
• 1:53
  path. In an extraordinary act of
• 1:56
  mercy, he pardoned the two men, declaring that, quote, the
• 1:59
  people of the United States were capable of forgiving as well as
• 2:03
  correcting their errors. UN quote.
• 2:06
  This act of clemency wasn't just a moment of personal
• 2:09
  magnanimity. It was a deliberate use of a
• 2:12
  power granted to the president in the new Constitution.
• 2:16
  His pardon of the whiskey rebels highlighted the president's
• 2:18
  unique authority to temper the harshness of the law with the
• 2:22
  wisdom of mercy was a calculated act meant to unify a divided
• 2:27
  nation, showing that the government could be both firm
• 2:30
  and just. But it raised questions that
• 2:34
  would echo throughout American history.
• 2:35
  How far should the president's power to forgive extend?
• 2:39
  Should there be limits? And what happens when it's used
• 2:42
  in ways that appear to be politically or personally
• 2:45
  motivated? That power, enshrined in Article
• 2:49
  2, Section 2 of the Constitution, has been wielded
• 2:51
  by every president since then. It's been used to heal divisions
• 2:55
  after wars, correct perceived injustices and, sometimes
• 3:00
  controversially, to reward political allies or serve
• 3:04
  personal agendas. From the Civil War to Watergate,
• 3:08
  from Prohibition to, well, last week, this power has shaped our
• 3:13
  nation's story in profound ways. And we dig into it more in 60
• 3:19
  seconds on WMMB. So, Dave, with this pardon
• 3:23
  coming into the play, are there really any of these acts by a
• 3:27
  president like this that are not political?
• 3:30
  It is a political power after all, right?
• 3:33
  It's certainly a political power.
• 3:35
  It's found in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, and it
• 3:38
  says, quote, the president shall have the power to grant
• 3:42
  reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United
• 3:45
  States comma except in cases of impeachment, UN quote.
• 3:51
  Now that seems like it's a pretty simple thing, but it's
• 3:57
  also one of those things that we inherited from our mother
• 4:01
  country, England. It was traditional for the for
• 4:04
  the British royalty to have the, the power of pardons and it was
• 4:10
  used politically. It was used professionally and
• 4:12
  personally. It maintains stability in a lot
• 4:16
  of ways, loyalty and stability. This this idea of pardons was
• 4:21
  one that could generate in, in in many ways, political
• 4:25
  protection for the monarch. In the in the aftermath of the
• 4:30
  English Civil Wars, it was used. It allowed the monarchs to
• 4:33
  correct perceived injustices or to show political favoritism.
• 4:39
  And by the time the colonies had been established, the power had
• 4:43
  evolved into a very nuanced tool of statecraft.
• 4:47
  It was both a symbol of sovereign authority and a
• 4:50
  mechanism to address judicial overreach or inflexibility,
• 4:54
  which is something we don't like to think about.
• 4:57
  We like to think of the jury as being the last bulwark against
• 5:00
  government abuse, but juries can be abusive and can overreach as
• 5:07
  well. And this pardon power enabled
• 5:10
  the monarch especially, or the governors in the colonies, to
• 5:14
  kind of push back against that. The political power of the royal
• 5:19
  governors, reflecting the British model, gave them that
• 5:23
  right. They frequently issued clemency
• 5:25
  for a wide range of offenses, petty theft right down to
• 5:28
  rebellion, in order to maintain order in a fractious and
• 5:33
  expanding society. The use of pardons foreshadowed
• 5:37
  executive clemency in the New Republic, where the challenge
• 5:41
  was enforcing federal authority across diverse populations, and
• 5:46
  it demanded a similar blend of firmness and forgiveness.
• 5:50
  Colonial governors often leveraged their pardons to
• 5:53
  address the unique challenges of frontier justice, which, you
• 5:57
  know, that's where rigid legal systems would clash a lot, often
• 6:02
  with practical realities. And that went on well into the
• 6:07
  early years of the twenty 20th century here in the United
• 6:10
  States. Think about places like
• 6:11
  Tombstone, Arizona or Dodge City where you had that political
• 6:17
  reality versus the, you know, the rigid legal system.
• 6:21
  It it was rather remarkable philosophically. the
• 6:26
  Enlightenment era, which is, you know, where we come from, deeply
• 6:32
  influenced the the creation of the pardon power in the US
• 6:35
  Constitution. People like John Locke and
• 6:39
  Montesquieu had championed the idea that justice must sometimes
• 6:44
  be tempered with mercy. Is there anybody that would
• 6:47
  disagree with that, particularly in cases where law alone could
• 6:51
  not achieve equity? Montesquieu had argued for a
• 6:55
  separation of powers, but also recognized that an executive
• 6:58
  must possess certain prerogatives, such as the
• 7:01
  ability to pardon, to counterbalance the judiciary's
• 7:04
  potential rigidity. Again, this is not something we
• 7:08
  like to think about. We like to think of the
• 7:10
  judiciary as being independent and a counterweight, a check and
• 7:16
  balance as it were, to the executive and the others.
• 7:18
  But even in that, they could become, and I think many of us
• 7:23
  would argue have become very rigid themselves and very
• 7:28
  inflexible themselves. John Locke saw clemency as a
• 7:32
  humane response to the imperfections of any legal
• 7:35
  system, a way to reconcile justice with compassion.
• 7:39
  In that spirit, when the framers sat down in Philadelphia, they
• 7:44
  included the pardon power in Article 2, Section 2.
• 7:47
  We talked about it. They entrusted the president
• 7:49
  with the authority to grant reprieves and pardons.
• 7:52
  Given how much they argued about the presidency.
• 7:55
  There was, as we're going to talk about in the next segment,
• 7:58
  some debate over this, but not as much as you might think.
• 8:03
  They saw it as a necessary executive check on the
• 8:06
  judiciary, ensuring that the president could act swiftly to
• 8:09
  correct miscarriages of justice, promote national unity, or
• 8:14
  provide mercy in extraordinary circumstances.
• 8:19
  And I would re emphasize, promote national unity.
• 8:24
  This blending of British tradition and Enlightenment
• 8:27
  ideas creates a uniquely American version of executive
• 8:32
  clemency, and one that of the course, has well sparked debates
• 8:38
  over its scope and usage ever since.
• 8:42
  Who's surprised when Washington pardoned the two men that had
• 8:46
  been sentenced to death? There were people who were mad
• 8:51
  about that. Hamilton not happy.
• 8:56
  How are we going to ever, you know, establish a firm,
• 9:01
  centralized government if you're going to go around pardoning
• 9:03
  everybody who stands up against it?
• 9:07
  But Washington didn't see it that way.
• 9:09
  He saw it as a chance to promote unity.
• 9:12
  And as he said, the nation can forgive and can learn from our
• 9:16
  mistakes. And that's certainly something
• 9:18
  that you would hope the pardon power would do.
• 9:22
  But I think we also know that it hasn't quite worked out that
• 9:27
  way, has it? Well no, and the one time that
• 9:31
  I'm familiar with a pardon in my lifetime is the pardon of
• 9:34
  Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford. And it was a pre emptive pardon
• 9:37
  as Nixon left office to also the idea of unity and healing the
• 9:42
  country was what it was at the foundation there.
• 9:44
  At least that was the excuse. Oh, that's what he said in his
• 9:46
  speech. Yeah.
• 9:48
  And it's one part. And I think that might have
• 9:51
  actually accomplished that in a way, But we'll see.
• 9:54
  Didn't get him elected next time out.
• 9:56
  And we're back with more on pardons on Bill Mcklive.
• 9:59
  Stay with us. It's a take on history you won't
• 10:02
  find anywhere else. Dave does history on Bill
• 10:06
  Mcklive. The McPherson Financial Group
• 10:09
  brings you the hour and we'll get to your calls on our next
• 10:12
  segment. Right now, Dave's going to get
• 10:14
  us back into taking a look at this pardon and, and how it came
• 10:18
  about in the US Constitution. And Dave, some arguments over
• 10:22
  how it's to be done. Yeah, at the convention there
• 10:26
  was, it wasn't a lot of sharp debate, certainly compared with
• 10:31
  the rest of the discussion about the presidency.
• 10:36
  But there was some debate and in concern about this.
• 10:40
  Hamilton and others who were more favoritist of a centralized
• 10:46
  government thought it was a good idea.
• 10:48
  They saw it as the a way to end a rebellion and to grant mercy
• 10:54
  where the law was overly harsh. One of their key points was that
• 10:59
  it was very utilitarian. In cases of national
• 11:02
  reconciliation. Hamilton foresaw situations
• 11:06
  where rebellions and insurrections might arise,
• 11:09
  threatening the national stability much like the Whiskey
• 11:11
  Rebellion did. And they argued that the ability
• 11:15
  to pardon would allow the executive to swiftly de escalate
• 11:19
  tensions and restore peace without prolonged trials or
• 11:23
  punitive measures that could deepen divisions.
• 11:27
  This kind of plays into what Gerald Ford said when he
• 11:31
  pardoned Nixon. It was we're we're trying to
• 11:34
  avoid this. We, we could, as, as I recall,
• 11:37
  and I don't remember these exact words in the speech, if this
• 11:40
  continued on, it would just be wall to wall trials, wall to
• 11:44
  wall hearings and punitive responses that could have
• 11:50
  deepened those divisions. The interesting thing to me is
• 11:55
  that Hamilton did object to the to the pardon of the two men who
• 11:59
  were condemned. But that's the story for another
• 12:02
  day, I guess. The proponents, like Hamilton,
• 12:06
  also believe that the legal system, that there's no legal
• 12:08
  system, no matter how well designed, that can perfectly
• 12:12
  account for every nuance of human behavior or circumstances.
• 12:17
  The law by its nature, is rigid. It's blind to extenuating
• 12:21
  factors that might render a punishment unjust.
• 12:24
  A president empowered to grant clemency, then could act as a
• 12:28
  final safeguard, tempering that, and that would be a good thing
• 12:33
  to have. That didn't mean that there
• 12:35
  weren't arguments against it. The concerns primarily from from
• 12:40
  George Mason, were they They didn't like this idea that it
• 12:47
  was so sweeping that it was just absolute for many delegates.
• 12:52
  That kind of echoed the British royal pardons, which had been
• 12:55
  yielded to shield, used to shield political allies and
• 12:59
  maintain power. They didn't like that idea, and
• 13:03
  they thought, well, what happens if a president that we're also
• 13:06
  afraid might become a king takes the same approach?
• 13:10
  They feared unchecked pardon power could lead to corruption,
• 13:15
  allowing the president to protect cronies, excuse
• 13:19
  political allies, or undermine the rule of law.
• 13:23
  These fears were, of course, particularly acute in light of
• 13:26
  the ongoing distrust of centralized powers that had led
• 13:30
  the colonies to rebel against England in the 1st place.
• 13:34
  But another concern was the potential for the pardon power
• 13:37
  to be misused in cases of treason or rebellion.
• 13:41
  There were delegates who worried that a president might pardon
• 13:43
  individuals listen to this not out of national interest, but to
• 13:49
  serve personal or political ends, effectively aiding
• 13:53
  insurrectionists or subverting the will of the people.
• 13:59
  This fear would dovetail with their broader apprehensions
• 14:02
  about creating an executive branch that was just too much
• 14:06
  like the monarchy that they had just tried and fought so hard to
• 14:11
  escape from. So they're concerned about too
• 14:16
  much power, but yet they want the power there for the good of
• 14:20
  the country, it seems. Well, the.
• 14:21
  Federalists do. The Federalists think this is a
• 14:23
  good idea and they see it as necessary.
• 14:26
  The anti federalists see a lot of concerns.
• 14:30
  They see a lot of potential for this to be abused, to be used by
• 14:33
  presidents, to subvert the will of the people, to reward
• 14:38
  political cronies, to serve their own interests rather than
• 14:42
  the interests of the nation. Now, like so many things, which
• 14:48
  of them turned out to be correct?
• 14:50
  I mean, that's that's one of the one of the more fascinating
• 14:55
  things to the about federalists versus anti federalists is
• 14:58
  federalists seem very pollyannish about American
• 15:00
  people and anti federalists seem more realistic about human
• 15:05
  nature. That doesn't mean that there
• 15:07
  isn't an ideal that we can't achieve here.
• 15:09
  But you got to give the anti federalists their deal.
• 15:12
  They clearly saw that not every president is going to be George
• 15:18
  Washington and some of these people, some of these people
• 15:22
  sitting around this very room, we're going to do things that
• 15:25
  are, you know, weird. The pardon power, of course, has
• 15:30
  been used throughout presidential history.
• 15:32
  It started with Washington with the the pardons for the Whiskey
• 15:34
  Rebellion, and he specifically said it was to promote unity, to
• 15:39
  reunite the country together. Thomas Jefferson, in an
• 15:44
  interesting approach, used the pardon power to forgive people
• 15:48
  who had been convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts, which
• 15:52
  his predecessor John Adams had had passed to jail.
• 15:56
  People who criticized the government in violation of the
• 15:59
  1st Amendment. Keep in mind that portions of
• 16:02
  those laws still on the books still being used today,
• 16:06
  particularly in the January 6th cases.
• 16:09
  Also keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson ran his campaign on
• 16:12
  repealing those but never did in the 19th century.
• 16:17
  Andrew Johnson is infamous in some ways for his mass pardons
• 16:23
  for Confederate soldiers in the aftermath of the post civil war.
• 16:27
  Also, his pardons of political leadership of the South, with a
• 16:32
  couple of major exceptions, but he was willing to to sign off on
• 16:36
  this. Now, many people in the North
• 16:39
  saw that as politically motivated because Johnson
• 16:41
  himself was a southerner and very much in in empathy with the
• 16:47
  Southern positions on things, with the exception of secession
• 16:52
  in the 20th century. Warren G Harding, who is, I
• 16:56
  think, one of the most fascinating presidents we've
• 16:58
  ever had, pardoned Eugene Debs, a socialist communist who would
• 17:04
  run for president from behind bars.
• 17:06
  He did so as a symbol of reconciliation.
• 17:10
  Well, Debs lost and lost pretty badly.
• 17:13
  But, you know, there's that First Amendment thing again.
• 17:17
  He should be able to say what he wants to say.
• 17:19
  And so Harding gave him that pardon.
• 17:23
  And Eugene Debs, for the most part, has gone in the the trash
• 17:26
  bin of history for the most part.
• 17:28
  Gerald Ford, of course, pardoned Richard Nixon, one of the most
• 17:32
  debated pardons in our history. And I've I'm of the opinion, and
• 17:37
  this is strictly my opinion, it shouldn't be.
• 17:40
  I mean, of all the pardons delivered, other than
• 17:43
  Washington's, it might have been the most honest one.
• 17:46
  Look, we can spend all of our time arguing about this or we
• 17:49
  can just move on. And we moved on.
• 17:53
  And was the country better off for that?
• 17:56
  I it was angering. It was frustrating, but yeah, I
• 18:01
  think we were. Of course, then you get into the
• 18:03
  21st century, you've got Bill Clinton partying, people like
• 18:09
  Marc Rich, the last minute, Donald Trump's pardons of his
• 18:13
  political allies, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone.
• 18:15
  You've got Calvin Coolidge and the Teapot Dome.
• 18:18
  You you've got a lot of these that that start to make you
• 18:21
  wonder, is this really what it was intended to be for?
• 18:27
  And of course, that has LED us to what has happened in the last
• 18:30
  week, which has a lot of people discussing whether or not we
• 18:34
  need to change this. Well, even if we do, how are we
• 18:39
  going to do that? That's the part that nobody
• 18:42
  really wants to talk about, but I suppose we should.
• 18:47
  And we will pick it up with Dave Bowman and Dave Does history.
• 18:50
  We also get to your thoughts in our final segment of the day
• 18:54
  right here on Bill Mick Live. We continue in moments on WMMB,
• 18:58
  the McPherson Financial Group, this hour's sponsor, as Dave
• 19:01
  does history of Bill Mick live. We take a look at presidential
• 19:04
  pardons since their inception here in this country.
• 19:07
  And Dave, where we at right now? So I guess where that leaves us
• 19:12
  is the debate and criticism that we have today over these
• 19:20
  pardons. It really came to, to A to a
• 19:24
  head last week when the pardon was issued for Hunter Biden.
• 19:30
  But by the way, you would literally have to be as dumb as
• 19:34
  cabbage not to know what's coming, despite the fact that
• 19:38
  they kept saying it wasn't. I mean, there's an old saying in
• 19:42
  the civil service, never believe anything until it's been
• 19:44
  officially denied. So you knew this this was coming
• 19:48
  and there's a lot of discussion about more of these coming, you
• 19:52
  know, pre emptive pardons for other people.
• 19:55
  Doctor. So this is of course launched
• 20:01
  more debate whether we should change this, whether we should
• 20:06
  this unchecked power it, it's got people a little concerned
• 20:12
  about some things. Should we require congressional
• 20:15
  or judicial oversight of that? Do we have concerns about
• 20:20
  perceived inequities in the use of the power?
• 20:23
  Clemency for your friends, but not, you know, for the pardons,
• 20:28
  for thee, but not for me. What about an emphasis on
• 20:33
  executive discretion as a balance to judicial rigidity?
• 20:38
  I mean, Hunter Biden, was he was he politically tried, as the
• 20:47
  president said, you could certainly make that argument
• 20:50
  that he wasn't, even though the president makes the argument
• 20:53
  that it was. It really depends on your point
• 20:55
  of view. And So what then does it, how
• 20:59
  then does that executive privilege, that discretion enter
• 21:04
  into all that? Then, of course, there's the
• 21:07
  arguments for the president's unique position to act as the
• 21:09
  final arbiter of justice at a mercy.
• 21:13
  Here's the problem with the whole thing, and whether you
• 21:17
  think that it needs to have as Bill and I were kicking around
• 21:20
  during the break, Can you imagine having a senatorial
• 21:22
  hearing over a pardon? Oh, it would be zoo.
• 21:27
  It would. It would be like the
• 21:29
  confirmation hearings for any appointment a president makes.
• 21:32
  It would be exactly what Gerald Ford was trying to avoid.
• 21:36
  I mean, it would be we'd we'd never get anything done.
• 21:39
  So I don't know that that's the solution.
• 21:41
  But even if we wanted to solve it that way, it requires, unlike
• 21:47
  Senator Manchin seems to think it requires an actual amendment
• 21:52
  to the Constitution. This cannot be changed by a law
• 21:55
  that Congress can't pass. A law saying the president
• 21:57
  doesn't have this power or it's going to be, would never stand.
• 22:01
  It's going to require an amendment, which means 2/3 of
• 22:04
  the House, 2/3 of the Senate have to approve it and 3/4 of
• 22:08
  the states have to ratify it. Please don't call me and say,
• 22:11
  Dave, we could have an article of five convention.
• 22:14
  No, you can't. You're not going to have an
• 22:16
  article of five convention to change pardon power.
• 22:20
  It's not going to happen, but you can pretend if you want.
• 22:24
  But in the meantime, do you think 35 states term?
• 22:27
  Limits. People pretending the term
• 22:29
  limits actually work and mean something because they don't.
• 22:32
  It's I don't know that you could get 35 states around.
• 22:36
  You couldn't get 2/3 of Congress to pass this anyway.
• 22:38
  I can tell you that too many of them want those pardons if they
• 22:41
  need them. So.
• 22:43
  And too many of them have, yeah, too many of them have their eyes
• 22:47
  on the White House anyway. So why would you give up a power
• 22:50
  that's there? So it's not going to change.
• 22:54
  The question that I have, Bill, is how come this has never been
• 22:56
  a question in a political, in a, in a presidential debate?
• 23:00
  No one has ever asked the presidential candidates, if you
• 23:03
  become the president, how will you use the pardon, the power of
• 23:06
  pardon? Because even though it's become
• 23:11
  an issue, it's one of those things that we'd you can't
• 23:14
  really put on a bumper sticker. And so maybe those are the
• 23:18
  questions we should start asking, you know, substantive
• 23:20
  policy questions as opposed to just nonsense.
• 23:26
  Maybe we should have the peanut gallery send a letter to the
• 23:29
  president and see if. You can answer.
• 23:32
  You could form your own nonprofit and do that though.
• 23:34
  Exactly. We're back in 60 seconds on
• 23:37
  WMMB, the executive and the pardon of the Power on this
• 23:41
  edition of Dave Does History on Bill Micklife, Randy's in
• 23:44
  Indialantic. OK, Randy, what are you thinking
• 23:45
  about all this? Hey, good morning.
• 23:48
  Yeah, I, you know, I think that the if you look at the history
• 23:52
  of the pardon and you lived before the Nixon era, the pardon
• 23:56
  was kind of implied to be something that would pardon a, a
• 24:02
  guilty person, not a person that might be found guilty.
• 24:05
  And I I think the way to say that is that the purpose of the
• 24:09
  pardon system seem to be to stop an injustice, not to stop
• 24:13
  justice. Oh, that's an interesting
• 24:17
  thought. So if you could tweak it, what
• 24:19
  would you do? Yeah, that's it.
• 24:21
  That's a tough one. I don't, I don't think you can
• 24:23
  change it because the power kind of needs to be absolute.
• 24:27
  But I do think that in history, and this is my opinion, I don't
• 24:32
  have historical facts to, to back it up, but it just kind of
• 24:35
  my impression watching everything in history is that
• 24:39
  people would probably be insulted if a president pardoned
• 24:42
  them before they were found guilty.
• 24:45
  Because the belief was that the federal government would be, you
• 24:49
  know, not as invasive and, and, and an attack dog like the like
• 24:54
  the prosecution is now. And you know, also just to point
• 24:57
  out, we, we have other forms of pardon system because we have
• 25:00
  people that, that we believe broke the law here that we can't
• 25:04
  get the, you know, the DA to act on.
• 25:06
  Yeah, that's true. You know, you mentioned the the
• 25:08
  preemptive pardon ID and Randy, thanks for your thoughts.
• 25:11
  I appreciate it. Dave, Adam Schiff said I don't
• 25:15
  want a preemptive pardon from Joe Biden that he could be
• 25:18
  saying don't throw me in the briar patch, but he doesn't want
• 25:21
  a pre emptive pardon because he thinks it makes him look guilty.
• 25:24
  And there is that perception out there too.
• 25:27
  And yet there are others who maybe do want that pre emptive
• 25:31
  pardon. I that to me is going to be one
• 25:34
  of the most fascinating things that happens in the if Biden
• 25:38
  does that. And of course, then we're back
• 25:41
  to is Biden even really the president?
• 25:43
  So who's really writing these? So there is that.
• 25:47
  But you know, again, it didn't always come with a conviction.
• 25:52
  I mean, I guess you could have dragged every soldier in the
• 25:55
  Civil War into a court and convicted them of sedition and
• 25:59
  treason, but they for the most part, they weren't.
• 26:03
  He just Andrew Johnson just granted those pardons.
• 26:06
  The, the convictions under the Alien and Sedition Act are, in
• 26:10
  my view, still questionable to this day.
• 26:13
  I don't think the Alien and Sedition Act is constitutional.
• 26:15
  And I'm appalled that Jefferson never repealed that.
• 26:23
  And I'm appalled that the courts, of course, packed with
• 26:25
  the Federalists upheld it. I mean, that's just, that's just
• 26:29
  insane. We we all go back to the, the,
• 26:33
  the Nixon pardon, but really outside of the Whiskey
• 26:36
  Rebellion, it may be the one part that actually accomplished
• 26:39
  the purpose, which was national reconciliation.
• 26:42
  And let's move on. On the healing and getting past
• 26:44
  Watergate and gave Dan Rather even more power than he had
• 26:49
  before. Line 2, you're up next on Bill
• 26:51
  Make live. Good morning.
• 26:53
  Morning, Bill. Good morning, Dan.
• 26:55
  Yeah, Nick, what do you think? Yeah.
• 26:58
  I think that that the way they're using it today, I don't
• 27:04
  think the communists should be pardoned.
• 27:06
  It's not a question of I, I don't want them running this
• 27:09
  country. Now if everybody votes for him,
• 27:12
  I still don't want them running the country.
• 27:14
  And, and as far as giving them pardon, no, there there has to
• 27:18
  be. If you label them a communist,
• 27:20
  if they're communist, you call them a communist, then they
• 27:23
  don't deserve pardon. They're not part of this
• 27:25
  country. They're they're.
• 27:26
  No, no pardon for Donald Trump then, because the left's been
• 27:29
  calling him a commie and a Nazi and everything else they can
• 27:31
  think of for the last eight years.
• 27:35
  Not just calling, not just calling, but actually being OK.
• 27:39
  These people in power today in Washington are communists and,
• 27:43
  and everything they do proves it.
• 27:46
  Trump is just the opposite. And and I, I don't want those
• 27:50
  guys. I don't want those communists,
• 27:52
  but. That is why we have elections
• 27:55
  and that's why we get folks in power and and we do it through
• 27:58
  the electoral process. Nick, I think, I think what
• 28:01
  you're saying at least becomes irrelevant with the voters
• 28:06
  having their say at that point. Dave, let me ask you this, does
• 28:11
  this pardon of Hunter Biden, not to mention any pre emptive
• 28:15
  pardons that Joe Biden may issue between now and leaving office
• 28:18
  on January 20th. Does that legitimize or open a
• 28:23
  door politically for Donald Trump to go back and, and
• 28:27
  they're already hearing calls. Time to pardon the folks from
• 28:29
  January 6th and and maybe some others along the way.
• 28:34
  From a strictly operational standpoint, since most of them
• 28:37
  were convicted quote UN quote under the remnants of the Alien
• 28:41
  and Sedition Act, I would be in favor of that anyway because I
• 28:44
  hate that law. Sure, again, I I think that it
• 28:49
  does, but. That was Biden's use for his
• 28:51
  son. Give political cover to Trump
• 28:55
  for any use he might determine is appropriate.
• 28:57
  I think he already had that to begin with.
• 28:58
  But now you're back to are you, are you serving the national
• 29:04
  will? Are you subverting the will of
• 29:06
  the people? And I don't.
• 29:06
  That's a question I can't answer.
• 29:09
  And if we have a person in there who is a a servant minded person
• 29:15
  with the job, it makes a difference in how those powers
• 29:18
  are wielded. I would agree with you there.
• 29:19
  Line one you're up on Bill make live.
• 29:21
  Good morning. Or a military of our Yeah, Eric.
• 29:25
  Yeah. So as far as this topic goes
• 29:27
  about, you know, pardoning or not, I, I think that it, it's
• 29:30
  necessary to have that kind of backstop for, you know, stopping
• 29:35
  injustice, right? It is a political, it does seem
• 29:39
  like a political power though, right?
• 29:41
  It's not a judicial power necessarily or or not in kind of
• 29:46
  in the, in the feel of it, right.
• 29:49
  Well, as Dave was talking, it's a check and a balance, right?
• 29:52
  Yeah. So, but I think I think that the
• 29:55
  strong take away here is, is that you have an October
• 30:00
  surprise in 2020 in the Hunter laptop that really pointed to
• 30:05
  some really ugly stuff that needed to be looked into before
• 30:12
  you would elect somebody like Biden the the presidency, right?
• 30:16
  And this, this is the consequence.
• 30:18
  And I think this is what people need to take away from it.
• 30:20
  And remember, moving forward with all presidential elections
• 30:24
  that that there is a real consequence if you don't do the
• 30:28
  vetting and thoroughly look into all of these things that are
• 30:33
  coming out that could point to some real corruption.
• 30:39
  And so this is just where we're at, you know?
• 30:43
  Well, it is. Are you suggesting any change at
• 30:45
  all in the in the power of the system?
• 30:48
  I, I don't think you can change the, the, the, the pardon
• 30:52
  system. I think it, I think it needs to
• 30:54
  be there. I, I think that it is political
• 30:56
  and I, and I do think that, that people just need to wake up and
• 31:01
  say, look, you, you know, America, you made a mistake in
• 31:03
  2020. You, you, you gave this guy the
• 31:07
  power to to whitewash and completely pardon himself
• 31:12
  because that's. A lot of things there.
• 31:14
  Yeah. I got to leave it there, Eric.
• 31:15
  The show's almost done, Dave. I'll turn it to you for the
• 31:18
  final word, my friend. Well, I, you can look at the
• 31:21
  Hunter Biden thing, but that's just one example of 47
• 31:25
  presidents who have something in their backgrounds that you could
• 31:29
  object to. It's it's all about us doing our
• 31:33
  due diligence up front, Is there?
• 31:35
  Any father that would not have pardoned his son in that
• 31:38
  circumstance. I don't think so, but you know,
• 31:42
  there's always, there's always that one, I guess.
• 31:45
  Dave, thank you. Talk to you next week.
• 31:46
  See you then check out more stories from
• 31:52
  history@davedoeshistory.org.