BY SAMUEL PRESCOTT
In what remains of our system of checks and balances, it is the job of Congress to oppose a president when he is wrong.
The Republicans have three members of Congress from New Jersey – Chris Smith, Jeff Van Drew, and Tom Kean, Jr. Chris Smith – at 30,000 feet – seems to be authentically trying to do his job. That is, to serve his constituents and the country with a degree of personal integrity and healthy respect for our core institutions, rights and responsibilities. I may be wrong about him. I hope not You can check for yourself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Smith_(New_Jersey_politician).
Jeff Van Drew is more complex. A long time Democrat, Van Drew switched to the Republican Party while already in Congress and has since pledged his “undying support” to Trump. Since Drew still objected to certifying the 2020 election even after fleeing the Capitol on January 6th, he does indeed appear to be loyal – to a fault.
Tom Kean, Jr., who didn’t get to Congress until 2022, does not appear to have ever held a job that wasn’t somehow tied to politics. Meaning (to me) that Kean, Jr. has ridden the coat tails of his father – Tom Kean – for decades. We have a lot of deer in New Jersey. Why is he one of them? Read on.
All of us now know that President Trump blanketly pardoned over 1,500 January 6th rioters. Less known is the elaborate process for pardons (and commutations) or the legitimate purpose behind.
The process exists to assure good decisions. When it functions, every application is examined individually and in depth by a team of lawyers. Input from multiple stakeholders is also sought. There are very important reasons to do this. One is to protect the rule of law. Another is more pedestrian, and basic. A careful process that forgives lawfulness rarely validates the decisions of the rest of us to be law-abiding.
It also validates the real public service of real juries. Very few people want to do it. The ones who do want to usually don’t get picked. And – almost without exception – the ones who do get picked take the heavy responsibility of deciding what happens to another person seriously. I know from personal experience that it is enervating to try criminal cases but uplifting to be part of them.
Who are these jurors? The people you drive in traffic with and shop next to. People who are like, and sometimes literally are, you.
When a President pardons a convicted felon, he undercuts a decision reached by real people like us who have given of themselves to hear and consider all the evidence in case. Showing mercy or forgiveness in truly compelling circumstances are legitimate reasons to pardon. We have certainly seen, though, that not all pardons are legitimate. Indeed, an unbroken string of Presidents going back at least to Clinton – including Joe Biden – have issued pardons that crossed this line. But none of them was made to enable a President’s future misconduct.
I don’t know what Trump’s actual motivations were here. But there is a way to understand them as being issued with that illegitimate, harmful purpose.
Look at who was pardoned. It wasn’t just the nonviolent knuckleheads who got caught up in something many later came to regret. Trump pardoned (or commuted the sentences of) more than 600 people charged with assaulting, resisting or obstructing law enforcement, including around 175 charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.
Among them was an Oath Keepers leader who led a contingent of militia members to Washington that stashed weapons in a hotel room across the Potomac River in Virginia while participating in the riot. He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. As was a Proud Boys leader convicted of seditious conspiracy.
But those are just the headliners. Here are a few of the others.
A different rioter (sentenced to 84 months) wore body armor, had a 9-millimeter pistol loaded with hollow point high pressure rounds (plus an extra magazine), and assaulted police officers with a wooden pallet. Another (sentenced to 48 months) brought homemade incendiary devices, a shot gun, a stun gun, and two pistols to the riot. A third (sentenced to 20 years) stomped on police officers’ heads, swung poles at them, struck an officer with a metal crutch, and attacked them with pepper spray and broken pieces of furniture, Then there is the rioter (sentenced to 28 months) with a Tavor X95 rifle, two handguns, a vial of injectable testosterone, and about 320 rounds of armor piercing ammunition. His stated desire included killing what he referred to as that “c—t Pelosi,” along with the Mayor of Washington, D.C.
Consider also the reasons Trump gave for giving these pardons; that the rioters were political “hostages” who had been punished, when there are others who commit murder and are then not charged. This rationale is perplexing on multiple levels. First, is prosecuting these violent rioters taking political hostages? And who are the known murderers who are not being prosecuted. Trump named none, and even if there were any (which is doubtful), why would a local prosecutor’s blatant misconduct in a murder case justify pardoning those who came to the U.S. Capitol bristling with weapons and assaulting cops?
Then there is how Trump granted all of these pardons. There appears to have been no meaningful review of individual cases, or assessment of facts, or input from stakeholders. To the contrary, Trump got way out ahead of even his own acolytes. Before the pardons, some of Trump’s own aides indicated that Trump would not issue sweeping pardons but would instead review each conviction on a case-by-case basis. Vice-President JD Vance told Fox News “if you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.” Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, called for a “case-by-case” review just last week, (predictably) stating “I condemn any violence on a law enforcement officer in this country.” Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the House – also recently called for individual case reviews.
Which takes us back to our New Jersey buck. Tom Kean, Jr. received a “100” rating from the National Association of Police Organizations (“NOPI”) in 2023. He ran as law-and-order candidate. Indeed, much of Kean, Jr.’s campaign was about his opponent’s defund the police tweets.
NOPI’s position on these pardons is crystal clear. It opposes them. Even the “undying[gly]” supportive Van Drew drew the line at violence against the police. And our deer in headlights? No opinion. Only silence.
Why? We are now in a moment when speaking out against anything Trump does takes a modicum of courage. Tom Kean, Jr. is not in Congress because he possesses that trait. He is there because he was born. Which takes no courage at all.
There are 435 members of Congress out of a nation of 330,000,000 people. That is a rather thin demographic slice. Leaders lead. Deer in headlights stay frozen in place.
(Visited 30 times, 30 visits today)
The events of January 6th, 2021 will forever be etched in the minds of Americans as a dark day in our nation’s history. The storming of the Capitol by a violent mob seeking to overturn the results of the presidential election sent shockwaves throughout the country and the world. As we continue to grapple with the aftermath of this unprecedented attack on our democracy, it is crucial to examine the role that enabling figures, such as former President Donald Trump, played in fomenting the lawlessness that unfolded that day.
Insider NJ, a leading political news website, has provided valuable insights into the impact of enabling Trump on the events of January 6th. In a recent article, the publication highlighted how Trump’s repeated false claims of election fraud and his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election laid the groundwork for the violence that erupted at the Capitol. By perpetuating baseless conspiracy theories and stoking the flames of division and mistrust, Trump created a toxic environment that emboldened his supporters to take extreme and dangerous actions.
Furthermore, Insider NJ pointed out how Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and encouragement of his followers to “fight like hell” at a rally preceding the Capitol siege contributed to the escalation of tensions and ultimately led to the violent breach of one of the most sacred symbols of American democracy. The article also underscored the complicity of certain Republican lawmakers and media figures who amplified Trump’s false claims and downplayed the seriousness of the situation, further fueling the chaos and confusion that engulfed Washington, D.C. on that fateful day.
As we reflect on the events of January 6th and strive to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again, it is crucial to hold accountable those who enabled and supported Trump’s dangerous rhetoric and actions. By shining a light on the role that enabling figures played in inciting the lawlessness that occurred at the Capitol, we can begin to address the underlying issues of disinformation, polarization, and extremism that continue to threaten our democracy. Only by confronting these challenges head-on and standing up for truth, justice, and accountability can we ensure that such a dark chapter in our nation’s history is never repeated.
