re: #173 dangerman

“The original idea was to give the president the power to right wrongs when the justice system failed. For example, if evidence later surfaced proving that an innocent person had been imprisoned, the president could free that person. It was never intended to let a supporter of your party off the hook after having pleaded guilty to a political crime”..electoral-vote.com yesterday

The larger point I’m making is that pleading guilty is irrelevant to the impropriety here. Neither Arpaio nor Libby pled guilty and their pardons are just as offensive. Libby’s is possibly the worst since it was entirely done to undermine the idea that obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI should be a punishable offense, at least when politically connected Republicans do it in furtherance of *eagle-scream freedom-boner* . That pardon in particular was aimed at sending a message to Flynn and the conspiracy theorists who want his entire prosecution, guilty plea and testimony reversed. D’Souza’s pardon similarly was intended to send a message to Cohen that if he holds out there might be a pardon waiting for him sometime after the end of the Mueller probe. Arpaio’s pardon sent a message to every local official and agency head that court orders (especially regarding actions against immigrants) can be taken with a grain of salt.

Every single one of these pardons has been signed with an overt goal of undermining the perceived legitimacy of the Courts and the FBI while sending a message to Trump’s allies and would be enablers that down the line he’ll have their back if they break the law on his behalf. In the mind of his followers “justice” is becoming a plastic concept that molds itself into the shape of whatever comports with Trump’s expedient desires.