Counter-Currents
Neither David Zsutty nor Counter-Currents are giving legal advice.
Shortly before leaving office, Biden pre-emptively pardoned several members of his family, General Milley, Doctor Fauci, the January 6 Select Committee, and several cops who had testified for the committee, despite the fact that none of them had legal proceedings against them.
Subscribe here to keep reading
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
5 comments
This is an excellent serious analysis of the situation and its complexities. It was this subject which made me think of banana republics in the other thread.
Especially Biden’s use of preemptive pardons seemed incredible, drawing a thick red line of protection and blatant suspicion around a collection of important actors under that regime.
But there’s trade offs and possibilities in all directions as Mr Zsutty has very well described.
That was a useful article, which answered a lot of the questions I had on this matter. So the notion of preemptive pardon is as old as the founding and was actually discussed? Fascinating. But still, I’m unconvinced. A preemptive pardon should have to be against a specific charge, say for example, accepting a bribe at a defined and specific time, not like a knight hood of general immunity, as the biden pardons seem to be. I don’t understand law well enough to be specific.
When are we going to see David in the podcast again?
What a mindzoggling grotesquerie of circumstance. What would a serious nation that doesn’t pander to criminal bullshit do? Or Bukele? Since invaders become the most privileged citizens overnight by just showing up why not make him Emperor? I’m sure his regime would find hasty effective solutions.
Nice to see you making use of your law background, as I am sure your friend Christian Secor will be too. Your distinguishing the difference between state and federal law is helpful as I have seen comments showing the writers think they are one and the same.
Paul Craig Roberts is on this too: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/01/29/the-democrats-who-stole-an-election-and-imprisoned-the-protesters-must-be-held-accountable/
This is an excellent essay and I think it’s on the mark.
Trump needs to pardon Derek Chauvin, and he can get him out of prison just as any of the Big Four Allied Nations could have unilaterally freed Rudolf Hess at any time when they shared the administration of Spandau prison. If Trump ultimately has to get the Minnesota Governor on board with a pardon at some point too, that can be leveraged by him, including from the MAGA grassroots. Minnesota is mostly White people and Trump can’t do it all.
However, Trump does need to stand up for the ancient legal principle of self-defense and to pardon of the McMichaels any William Bryan. The cult of the Numinous Negro who can do no wrong must end.
I will make a minor quibble about the essay. Sovereignty is like being a little bit pregnant. You either have it or you don’t. Other than as a rhetorical device, you can’t divide Sovereignty.
There are some real-world gray areas. If the Mouse That Roared is a fully sovereign duchy, they may or may not have any gravitas at all before the world bar compared to nuclear-armed Superpowers.
If you are dividing Sovereignty between the National government and the States in your rhetoric, then maybe you are actually making an Anti-Federalist argument rather than a Federalist one.
If this argument had been properly settled at the time of the nation’s founding, it would not have required an eventual war between the states and the 14th Amendment to help clarify. We are still struggling with these questions today, and with what is the nature of Citizenship.
The Federalist view of Federalism is that States are not Sovereign. No way. No how.
What the Constitution does do, however, is create a Sovereign Nation, with States that are basically territorial-administrative groups ─ but, but, but ─ with as many rights as possible that are reserved to the States and to the People.
If the Supreme Court decides that some law is Unconstitutional because it unduly impinges upon “privacy rights,” they are probably on solid legal grounds unless the whole body politic is harmed otherwise. A kiddie porn ban might not be a valid privacy right, but birth control maybe is not anyone else’s business. We are not a scarlet letter theocracy.
🙂
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.