As the faux President of the United States stumbles and mumbles across the finish line, we have been primed to accept the narrative that it is perfectly normal to pardon public servants for acts for which they have not been charged. Following their logic, Trump is so vindictive that he is willing to unleash blatant lawfare against those who worked diligently in carrying out their sworn duty in the furtherance of law and order protecting the citizenry from genuine threats. The reason? He is literally Hitler and poses an existential threat to law and order – let alone humanity itself. I also hear he wants to take the lollipops from every child in America. Quel monster!

Generally, in police procedural shows, as doubtless in real life, it is the guilty who are quickest to call for a lawyer. This rumoured offering of sweeping preemptive blanket pardons takes this process two steps further back whereby one enters a plea of innocence and invokes a lawyer before any charge has been laid.

I should be clear that these preemptive pardons are to protect one from a legitimate fear that the Orwellian practice (now fully in effect) that protections are needed against charges for pre-crimes, wrongthought, and holding views contrary to the faculty lounge at Harvard. There is no pardon that can cover these violations of protocol. The presumption here is that individuals holding prominent positions in and adjacent to the “Biden” administration were engaged in criminal activity while serving in those capacities. Clamoring to be found innocent prior to any investigation ought to evoke the cynic in everyone. Certainly, it begs a few questions.

For starters, how is this not an open admission that the Office of the Attorney General and the DoJ (Department of Justice) has not already been weaponized against political opponents? Consider the following alternatives:

• If the DoJ is not only capable of, but has been guilty of effectively targeting their political adversaries. This gives justification for the incoming administration to scrutinize the actions of their rival’s administration to address injustices that took place under their purview. This would inevitably result in those guilty of corruption to run for cover preemptively to spare themselves from having their deeds exposed and avoid the prospect of a prison sentence for said abuses. These all-purpose pardons would be a remedy from accountability.
• If the DoJ is pristine and above reproach, acting within the confines of their limited responsibilities and they were wrongly maligned by the petulant machinations of their political rivals, shouldn’t this be exposed? Such an administration would not hesitate to open their books and reveal their integrity; establishing their stoic dedication in serving as protectors of the trust granted them by the American citizens. Consequently, they have been the targets of a political smear through specious. Not only would public hearings exonerate them from reputational harm which would otherwise hang over them like the proverbial sword of Damocles.

Ultimately, if the office of the AG (Attorney General) is compromised sufficiently to target the political enemies of one party, the inherent corrupt nature is not confined by party affiliation. In fact, many of those selected to serve in the Trump administration have made credible and specific accusations that the “Biden” DoJ, letter agencies, and other administrative and regulatory agencies have acted criminally. I invite you to read Kash Patel’s (nominee to head the FBI) book and/or watch his documentary, Government Gangsters, to check out his claims and his overt claims of corruption in the 2020 elections, J6, etc. If approved, Patel will have unrestricted access to the FBI files and will be in a position to put up or shut up. Similarly, he has already provided enough red meat to make him vulnerable to charges of slander if he is wrong.

The dual decisions to malign and presume that Trump will send attack dogs to go after those on his “enemies list,” and to seek blanket pardons before Trump and his team are sworn into office alone is reason to suspect malfeasance.

If we were to grant that these actors and agencies performed with integrity and unjustly had their character besmirched by false accusations; then blanket preemptive pardons is not the path to healthy resolution or restoring public confidence. Furthermore, it would permit the spectre of corruption to carry on unabated, leaving more innuendo and potential criminality to persist. There is only one healthy way to resolve this imbroglio and that is the disinfectant of sunlight – and lots of it. We should not be surprised that scripture is the best source to offer a suitable aphorism to deal with this situation: The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. – Proverbs 18:17 Not only must justice be done, but it must appear to be done for the sake of national unity.

Mind you, I have strong suspicions about which individuals I find more trustworthy to rightly divide the word of truth, but this alone is insufficient for the furtherance of justice. Little has done more to shake the public faith in authorities than the insistence that we “trust the experts” and allow them to determine what information may or may not be seen, heard, and even expressed. Anyone believing they have the corner on truth and/or that feel qualified to expect unquestioned obeisance to their statements of “fact” as unimpeachable is a delusional, a liar, or both. With all deference to Samuel Johnson, I contend that it is censorship, not patriotism that is the last refuge of the scoundrel. In fact, patriotism is often either the justification or a scapegoat of the liar who seeks the right to act as sole arbiter of what must be accepted as factual and true without subjecting the evidence to scrutiny.

This brings us to the second point: That an innocent person ought to insist that they have the opportunity to give a fulsome defense for their actions if they were indeed valourous rather than vainglorious and opportunistic. They should welcome the prospect of clearing their name rather than seeking to sneak away under a cloud of perceived misconduct.

Imagine, if you will, that you are guilty of a crime and don’t want to face the consequences of your felonious activities. What would you do?

There are primarily two types of people in prison: Those who did nothing wrong and profess their innocence and those who are guilty who maintain their innocence. As such, we cannot conclude anything based on such assertions. Conversely, the most robust and effective way of determining guilt or innocence is in presenting and weighing the evidence without undue bias. For this reason, those who are requesting and/or accepting these prospective blanket pardons should be given heightened scrutiny as they seek to be granted clemency without a chance to consider the evidence against them. Furthermore, they are telegraphing that there is damning evidence against them.

Many of you may point out the fact that due to the cost and onerous nature of the process, there are several just reasons to wish to avoid a court case. To this, let me suggest the following:

1. Given the influential role of these administrators and government assets, they have been placed in positions of trust over those who generally did not accede to their authority over their lives. Consequently, the pool of victims is vast and this ruling class accepted the right to impose their will over those with comparatively no power. This mitigates any personal discomfort they may claim since, in the words of Uncle Ben, with great power comes great responsibility.
2. Governments (especially in the US) are uniquely tasked with protecting the constitutional rights and freedoms of the citizenry. They are employees of the public and therefore are accountable to them for their actions. Anyone in authority who usurped that role and sought to control and potentially harm the public have violated that trust and can only be excused by those who were wronged as these were not victimless crimes.
3. In many cases, these were the same individuals who took from the coffers of taxpayers to criminally charge, impose penalties, and squelch the rights of citizens while they were in power. To cry foul when the same mechanisms can be utilized to hold them to account while they still almost certainly have far more assets at their disposal than the citizens who may well have been targets of the lawfare they engaged in exposes a level of chutzpah that far exceeds any basis of compassion.
4. If blanket pardons are able to shelter those professing their innocence from the process of justice, then this is a denial of justice. There can be no basis for these individuals to claim they have been unjustly treated since their grasping appropriation of a preemptive pardon is a tacit effort to evade justice based on speculative crimes they fear being brought to light. On principle alone, this is an invitation for corruption without accountability – something to which no common citizen has access. Thus, the notion of a preemptive pardon makes this unjust if not an outright inversion of justice.
5. The Democrats set the standard that no one is exempt by subjecting Trump to endless charges, hyper-surveillance, charges against associates (including persecuting lawyers who sought to provide Trump with his legal right to a defense). Any administration that was willing to go to the lengths that the “Biden DoJ” did to bankrupt and undermine Trump’s Presidency with what smacks of outright lawfare, you lose any justification for claiming to be a victim.

To be clear, my criticism is not against anyone that politicians, “journalists,” or other biased actors have spit-balled should be considered for clemency in the form of blanket preemptive pardons, but those who have requested and/or accept one. One cannot control when an individual without your permission ventures that you ought to consider a get out of jail free card sans criminal accusations. In fact, journalists in particular should be compelled to explain why they would suggest or normalize the concept of blanket preemptive pardons as even an acceptable consideration.

At this point, I do not yet know who, if anyone, will be a benefactor of this putative pardonpalooza or whether there is even legal justification that will stand up under the extra-judicial moxie at work here. We do however know that the exacting specification in the wording for his son’s (Hunter Biden) pardon was intended to deliberately shield him within the vast window of time where Hunter’s capacity to engage in high crimes was at its apex. It also just so happens that the terms of the pardon would benefit “the big guy” who signed the pardon.

However these proposed blanket pardons play out, I want to finish up by addressing the most important point: A political pardon is no protection against ultimate justice.

God doesn’t play on the margins. He doesn’t equivocate or ponder what the meaning of “is” is when rendering his judgment. Nothing is hidden from him and political gamesmanship won’t alleviate his judgment. If he could be so deceived and compromised, he would not be just.

It is not known at the time of this writing whether these beyond questionable pardons will stand up under legal scrutiny. If so, the public may be justly jaded about the state of our legal system; however, there is no blanket that will hide anyone from our omniscient and omnipresent God. Whatever we know or do not know based on hiding and/or destroying evidence, censorship, or other efforts to obfuscate and manipulate, God laughs at such deceptions. We already know we live in an unjust world and the only question we can grapple with yet not have a clear answer to is the depth and specifics of the injustices. This however comes from our limitations as human beings.

Based on my observations, those in power seem to have convinced themselves that they are exempt from accountability and scrutiny. In many cases, their brazenness has left them comically exposed to the point that they are like a child playing hide and seek who believe their hapless parent can’t see them even as they hear the giggling and see their feet sticking out from under the curtain.

I will be the first to admit that for much of my life, I was naïve about a great number of lies that I had taken at face value and over time, through investigation I have learned a great deal that was essentially hidden in plain sight. Regardless, I don’t pretend to know how deep the fraud goes or how great the injustices might be. It is not my responsibility to grasp it all, especially as no human can possibly carry such knowledge. I do know that I am to seek truth and use discernment over what and who are reliable sources and to live with honesty and integrity. This necessitates an investigation of evidence and any justice-minded person should desire the same.

Those seeking to dominate over others and malevolently use their positions to do evil may fool some of the people, but they will not fool God. They will never ultimately gain the world, but they are placing themselves in the inevitable position whereby they will lose their soul. They may try to cover themselves by pulling a blanket pardon over themselves for cover, but God not only sees their feet, but he sees their heart. A faux pardon, just like a heart that is not contrite and placed in the hands of Christ will not give them the perfect protection they think it does.