Boston Herald

Media ignores politics of Clinton pardons

- By MICHELLE MALKIN Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigat­es” on CRTV.com

Quick, grab the smelling salts and clear the fainting couches.

President Trump’s pardon of conservati­ve author Dinesh D’Souza last week violently triggered Beltway media elites.

To The Washington Post editorial board, President Trump’s use of the pardon is “another show of disrespect for the justice system.” Outspoken D’Souza was the subject of a highly politicize­d prosecutio­n by former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (now an anti-Trump resistance leader) over campaign finance violations totaling $20,000. The WaPo punditocra­cy grudgingly admits that the president “has constituti­onal power to do this” and that it is “Mr. Trump’s prerogativ­e” to pardon individual­s the newspaper considers “unsavory.”

Yet, the editoriali­sts fulminate that what “is offensive here is not the pardon power, but the use of it” for “arbitrary, political and unjustifie­d” reasons.

G-U-Double F-Awww. The protesting Posties wouldn’t be capable of acknowledg­ing an acceptable exercise of the pardon power by Trump if it body-slammed them off the ropes on UFC Fight Night.

Former Navy sailor Kristian Saucier received a Trump pardon after serving a year in prison for taking photos on his submarine to show his family where he worked (in contrast to the hands-off treatment of the classified informatio­n-breaching Clinton brigade ). Too political, the pundits cry.

The late boxer Jack Johnson, America’s first black heavyweigh­t champion, received a Trump pardon after being jailed under Jim Crow for traveling with a white woman (who later became his wife) across state lines. Not enough, the moaners moaned. Trump’s still a racist, the grievancem­ongers mongered.

Indeed, The Washington Post opinion writers have depleted their Bank of Selective Outrage accounts while spewing about Trump’s pardons. “Nothing but rightwing trolling,” harumphed Paul Waldman. “Twisted brand of mercy,” decried Ruth Marcus. “A warm-up for a constituti­onal crisis,” squawked Jennifer Rubin.

Spare us all the hot air, media heavers. Democrats have long wielded pardon powers to reward deep-pocketed cronies, absolve unrepentan­t domestic terrorists and lionize national security leakers. The “democratic values” that WaPo-lemicists claim are now under siege thanks to Trump’s pardons got crushed under the wheels of the corruptocr­at bus a long, long time ago.

Self-dealing Bill Clinton handed out pardons and commutatio­ns like Pez candy to relatives like half-brother Roger Clinton (convicted of cocaine possession) and family-tied associates like his brother-in-law Hugh Rodham’s clients, including convicted cocaine distributo­r Carlos Vignali and convicted herbal supplement fraudster and perjurer A. Glenn Braswell; the two felons had forked over $400,000 to Rodham in legal fees to win their clemencies.

Hillary’s other brother, Tony, raked in more than $240,000 from a couple convicted of bank fraud, who he just happened to mention to his brother-in-law in the White House, who granted the pardon — after which brother Tony denied being paid for any work having to do with a pardon. Meanwhile, Madame HRC’s Senate campaign treasurer, William J. Cunningham III, pocketed $4,000 to prepare clemency for two Arkansas-based convicted tax cheats, Robert Fain and James Manning. President Clinton granted both; Hillary played dumb and feigned shock, shock that political favor-trading was going on in Clinton land.

And don’t even get me started on the putrid Marc and Denise Rich pardon scandal, overseen by Clinton/Obama alum Eric Holder. If systemic pay-for-play pardons aren’t a “twisted brand of mercy,” what else are?

Critics assail President Trump for “bypassing the traditiona­l review process,” which 1) is his prerogativ­e; 2) was standard operating procedure during the Clinton years; and 3) has been questioned by watchdogs on all sides of the ideologica­l aisle because of the inherent conflict in the federal pardon lawyer’s office being overseen by federal government prosecutor­s reluctant to undo any conviction­s.

“Unsavory” is in the eye of the beholder. So is the “arbitrary” use of the presidenti­al pardon. Will the resistance ever acknowledg­e a legitimate use of this power by President Trump?

Quoth the raving ravers: Never. Never. And never more.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States