[+Homage to Harry Litman]
This is not how I had planned to spend this day, but I can be silent no longer. This morning I read the latest USAToday hit-piece on President Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, to protect him from the vengeance that has been promised by the incoming Trump administration and the compliant Supreme Court that has granted the President of the United States king status, free of criminal responsibility to pervert the Department of Justice to serve the personal goals of the president rather than do its statutory jobs with political neutrality.
I have stated previously my belief that the media’s obeisance to Trump will cost it, and the country, dearly. Now, we see plainly the media doing exactly what experts in authoritarianism, like Yale Professor Timothy Snyder, have repeatedly warned against – obeying in advance. If they believe that someone of Trump’s ilk is going to give them credit for this, they are ignoring the lessons of history and will come, too late, to regret their cowardice.
I subtitled this piece regarding Harry Litman, who, after starting to write, I chanced to discover had resigned from the Los Angeles Times in protest to the editorial interference of its billionaire owner and Trump supporter. For those interested, Mr. Litman’s statement can be read here:
Everyone should read it.
Returning to my own thoughts inspired by USAToday’s attack on Biden, the title implies there is a “debate” over Biden’s legacy resulting entirely from his “broken promise” not to pardon his son. To clarify, the author, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is, as near as I can tell, not a relation to Vivek Ramaswamy, the Trump bootlicker of same last name. An odd coincidence, but there it is.
The article notes that “The backlash against the 82-year-old lame-duck chief executive was predictable, swift and bipartisan,” implying the criticism is justified and widespread. The first “authority” cited is Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congressthing from Georgia, famous for belief in QAnon and other phantasmagorical conspiracy theories, screamer during Biden’s SOTU speeches, supporter of Matt Gaetz, and, well, you probably know the rest.
But, as if there were no history, notable Democrats have also jumped on the “let’s self-immolate” bandwagon. Adam Schiff is cited, claiming “It sets a bad precedent.”
Ramaswamy goes on to note that Biden’s pardon has “precedent-setting nature” that “could shape how he is remembered for years to come” because, according to Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian and professor of history at Rice University, he said he wouldn’t do it and “There’s nothing positive about it.”
There are plenty of positive aspects to it, to which I will return after I finish excoriating this execrable piece of journalistic nonsense. The author, for example, claims that virtually universal condemnation of Biden’s about-face on the pardon “make clear that his legacy will be defined by his two sons – and his nemesis Donald Trump, whose two nonconsecutive terms as president will serve as bookends to Biden’s single term in office.”
I suggest, with full disrespect, that Ms. Ramaswamy and the USAToday editors need to read some more history. And, after noting that Biden stepped in after the catastrophic failure of Trump’s administration to effectively deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, promising to and “mobilizing vaccination shots and instituting an unpopular mask mandate. Over time, COVID deaths declined, Biden lifted the mask mandate, and Americans went on with their lives.”
But that apparently counts for nothing because “Biden’s presidency also was at times rocked by turmoil. Inflation rose to a 40-year high [not plausibly charged to Biden], 13 soldiers died during the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan [a deal made by Trump], migrants poured into the country illegally along the southern border [Trump stopped the bipartisan deal to address this], and wars in Ukraine [Putin, Trump’s idol, started that war, not Biden] and the Gaza Strip [chargeable to Biden, really???] “tested the nation’s influence on the world stage.”
Well now, considering that Trump’s legendary ignorance and refusal to learn about foreign affairs, almost certain conspiracy with Russia to get elected and with whom he treasonously shared U.S. state secrets, any testing of the nation’s influence, if chargeable to anyone, is chargeable to Trump. And, to quote from the line in Natural Born Killers (movie), “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”
The author’s bias is further evident in the claim that Kamala Harris’ loss to Trump dealt a “serious blow to Biden and his legacy since many of his accomplishments in office will almost certainly be wiped out by Trump when he returns to the White House in January.”
The reality is that history, if there is any after Trump’s presidency, will condemn Trump’s legacy for destroying the progress made under Biden’s presidency. If you don’t know about the American economy under Biden, you haven’t been paying attention. If you don’t realize what a bunch of losers and lunatics Trump is proposing to populate his cabinet and bring down the federal government, you understand nothing about how this country is governed.
It’s more than a little curious that a historian like Douglas Brinkley is so quick to make sweeping interpretations of current affairs when historians have always warned us against premature judgments about historical realities. Maybe he just likes seeing his name in the media. Equally disturbing in a piece of this nature, is the author’s observation, delivered without context, that Trump’s “attempts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden resulted in his first impeachment, which ended in a Senate acquittal.”
Yes, Trump was acquitted but he wasn’t found “not guilty” of the acts he obviously took (it’s on the tapes and everyone with a functioning mind knows what he did); he was “acquitted” because the Republicans in the U.S. Senate refused to do their duty, refused to hear evidence or witnesses of Trump’s traitorous conduct because they feared his vulgar retributive response. The author ignores those facts because they conflict with the narrative flow and, besides, Trump would not approve.
Finally, the author gets around to the reality of the Hunter Biden situation. Quoting the ever-quotable historian Brinkley:
If it had been a different type of Republican being inaugurated president in January, Biden may have thought twice. But the thought of Trump in the end having control over his son’s future in a federal prison was a bridge too far.
Indeed. Imagine that Joe Biden leaves office with his son exposed to Trump’s promise revenge along with the useless space-occupying Congressman Comer also promising to continue pursuing Hunter after years of fruitless and costly investigations into the Biden family. Republicans smell blood in the water and like the sharks they are, figured Hunter was an easy target once Joe Biden was out of the way. What would be said about Biden then? That he failed to protect his family in the face of multiple overt threats by Trump and his vengeance army? That he was a “bad father?” Worse?
Nevertheless, Ramaswamy persists with a roundup of Democrats eager to get their names in the press by criticizing Biden’s decision to protect his son, including Sen. Michael Bennett, D-Colo and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash.
Finally, the author notes, without acknowledgment, that her earlier statement about the “unprecedented” nature of the Biden pardon was exaggerated if not outright false:
…many [presidents], like Biden, have faced criticism for how they’ve used that power. Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon probably cost him a second term. Bill Clinton was pilloried for granting a series of pardons in his final hours in office, including one for his brother Roger Clinton, who had been convicted of selling cocaine to an undercover police officer. Trump pardoned dozens of people during his first term, including his son-in-law’s father and some of his closest allies who were convicted of crimes ranging from financial fraud to witness tampering and more.
Ah, but Ramaswamy notes that “Biden … is the first president to pardon one of his children” while dragging into the story the unnecessary criticism of a Trump-appointed judge who gratuitously offers his judgment that “nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.” Another example of a Trump-appointed judge speaking about a political matter that is none of his business. Maybe he’s looking for a Trump appointment to a higher court. We’ll know soon perhaps.
Finally, Ramaswamy drags in Melissa DeRosa, identified as a “Democratic strategist and author” bitching that Biden’s protection of his son from the promised vengeance of Donald Trump and his army of mindless sycophants was somehow going to contribute to the further splintering of the Democratic Party. Until now I though Ms. DeRosa was bright and committed to the country’s welfare. She was the “right hand” to Governor Cuomo during the pandemic that rages through New York in 2020, killing tens of thousands. Cuomo, you will recall, was forced to resign in the face of accusations of sexual misconduct, about which one hopes Ms. DeRosa was ignorant. Why she would choose now to say that Biden’s decision to protect his son against Trump creates questions Joe’s standing as an “honorable man with integrity” is beyond my ability to understand.
You might think from all this that Joe Biden acted arbitrarily to free his son of the potential consequences of an objective, independent prosecution directed by politically neutral law enforcement. In fact, however, the reality is that Trump has sworn vengeance against Joe Biden and his family. Anyone with a reasonably objective mind should be able to understand that the President had good reason to protect his son from what Trump credibly promised.
As Harry Litman noted in his resignation announcement cited at the outset of this post, Trump is exactly what you see. With the help of his appointed judges, the inexplicable reticence of Attorney General Garland, and the unprecedented interference of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Trump-appointed majority, Donald Trump has escaped accountability for his many crimes before and during his presidential terms. Now that he has been given a free hand to exact retribution against his perceived enemies, he has made clear his determination to use that power to the fullest.
Given that reality, I salute Joe Biden for protecting his family to the extent he can by using the power the Constitution gives him (no exceptions for President’s family members and plenty of precedent). There was no reason for Biden to leave his son at the mercy of a criminal like Donald Trump so his “legacy” could remain untouched. Like all presidents, who occupy the most difficult job in the world, there are many grounds for criticism for those who never stood in his shoes. In my book, Joe Biden has no reason to be concerned about how history will judge him in relation to his predecessors and successors. He has much to brag about, and his decision to protect his son is among those difficult decisions of which he should be most proud.
SHINING SEA 