“The only reason I know to ask for a pardon, because you think you’ve committed a crime.”
After gripping testimony from former Justice Department officials describing Donald Trump’s efforts to undo the 2020 election results, House lawmakers on Thursday identified five Republican lawmakers who allegedly sought pardons — suggesting not just their own fear of criminal exposure, but a belief that the outgoing president would preemptively protect them from the investigations that followed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress.
Videotaped testimony presented at the end of Thursday’s hearing named Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.) and Scott Perry (Pa.) as the lawmakers who sought preemptive pardons after or, in at least one case, before the Capitol breach. They were among the most active and outspoken supporters in Congress of Trump’s false claims of election fraud.
They’ve confessed to treason. Strip them of any powers they might have, impeach them, and if found guilty, begin the criminal proceedings. Those five, at the very least, need to have the full weight of the law, the law that they sought to avoid, brought down hard on them.
Marjorie Taylor Green also belongs in that rogue’s gallery. They’re all desperately trying to deny that they wanted a pardon, but that’s what criminals say — they were all quite vocal about supporting Trump’s insurrection.
Treacherous scum, every one of them.
Akira MacKenzie says
Why are they still in office? Because our illustrious Founding Fathers–peace be upon their holy, blessed names–couldn’t think of a dependable means of ejecting corrupt politicians that didn’t require the permission of the accused’s party.
Couldn’t think of one, or didn’t want one because too many of them would not have passed a bona fide independent investigation?
Louie Gohmert on Pete Navarro’s indictment: “If you’re a Republican, you can’t even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they’re coming after you.”
Why isn’t TFG in an orange jumpsuit?
The reason they haven’t been expelled is simple. The House Committee on Ethics hasn’t investigated the charges and submitted a recommendation to expel them to the full House. But then, “Voting to expel requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the members. This is set out in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.” There aren’t 145 members of the House who would vote to expel them.
There is similar process to expel a Senator, and I think several of them would qualify.
Interestingly, of the 15 members of the Senate and 5 members of the House who have been expelled from Congress, all but one were Democrats, and the one exception was a Democrat-Republican (Jefferson’s party).
Also interesting, all but one of those expelled were from the South. The shame of the South continues with this group.
I believe that if they are tried and convicted of sedition, they can’t hold public office. Again, there have been no indictments of sitting members of Congress, much less Chump. Formal investigations are under way, but the DOJ has to have an ironclad case or else be accused of being used for political purposes…i.e. what Chump was trying to do. Add to that caution the fact that the courts are full of Republican appointees and you’ve got a daunting situation.
But hey, for the third time in its history, Texas is pushing to secede from the nation it is part of. The first was successful, the second a disaster.
They may have committed crimes, but not treason, which is narrowly defined in the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
drewl, Mental Toss Flycoon says
@6 I think the “Aid and Comfort” part fits…
Are “their Enemies” defined? Does an “Enemy” have to be a country with which the USA is at war? Or even a foreign entity or agent of any kind?
@LG, was the Confederacy a foreign entity during the Civil War? No, but then, the oaths include enemies, foreign or domestic for a reason.
Key to accepting a pardon and implied by asking for one is the admission of guilt. If we had a copy of a request, it’d detail specific crimes that they were seeking a pardon for and hence, an admission of guilt that’d go a very long way in a court of law.
I doubt there is a paper request anywhere to find at this time maybe earlier but I doubt it. These people are using their little computer / phones and therefore think they are invisible besides being just stupid. the law is something that someone else makes to thwart their desires so if you can get away with it it is OK there is nothing about ethics in anything they do or say.
one thing seems clear they have no social conscience and care for only themselves.
Yes, by literal reading of the law, the charge would not be treason but sedition. But it doesn’t change the thrust of the argument — especially as US and UK law enforcement doesn’t give a damn about legalities as demonstrated by the UK’s recent decision to extradite Julian Assange.