The Practice of Federal Pardon - 6th Analysis – 29 June 2019

1) There's a tiny hole in our constitution. There's a gigantic, gaping hole - a hellacious miscarriage of justice - in the practice of federal pardon by the Justice Department. The policy is 100% wrong in one key manner. On @GenFlynn's behalf, we'll parse this today.

2) In the constitution, there is just the slightest of passing references to this great power. It is in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1: "and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

3) That's it. One of the greatest powers granted to any human on the face of the earth, and not even a full sentence worth of law written into our founding document. Amazing. I can share with you, now, what we got wrong. There is a single turn of phrase that would save the day.

4) Here is the needed, but missing, phrase: "or, in redressement of grievous miscarriages of justice to relieve the innocent." If that phrase were in our constitution as it should be, there'd be no confusion on the matter. I call it the principle of Pardon by Innocence.

5) I will soon share, in extensive quote, the source - it's Wikipedia, believe it or not - that finally clarified this hellacious problem for me. We must turn now, though, to the egregious misuse of power written into the policy practice of the Justice Department.

6) At the Justice Department there is, I just learned, something called The Office of the Pardon Attorney. To suffer the noxious odor of disgust I feel, you have to go to their website yourself. Here's the link:

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

7) Step 4. Reason for seeking pardon, is the worst. If you wish to understand it clearly, you must read it for yourself in full. I will just quote the worst component here: "A pardon is not a sign of vindication and does not connote or establish innocence."

8) It continues, "For that reason, when considering the merits of a pardon petition, pardon officials take into account the petitioner's acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement for the offense."

9) How high, holy, mighty and directly in communion with the master of the Universe must these officials be. They are not there for innocence, oh no, only for guilt, and guilt self-proclaimed, self-confessed, in full obeisance and surrender. They're good. You're bad. Got that?

10) The procedure continues in Step 10. Effect of a pardon. Just in case you thought you got off the hook...

"While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction,

11) continuing: "it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction. Therefore, even if you are granted a pardon, you must still disclose your conviction on any form where such information is required, although you may also disclose the fact that you received a pardon."

12) Who remembers Quasimodo, and the Inquisition? He'd likely not have been so politically correct in his terms, but he'd fit right into The Office of the Pardon Attorney. Is anyone else thinking 1984 and George Orwell right now?

13) So, if this is a Pardon, why don't I just accept some jail time and have done? Who wouldn't rather face a cell than submit to such overarching, self-righteous spiritual power over one's soul? Abase myself? Maybe to a priest. Never to the government. For shame.

14) I have to opine further. Consider the tone of their procedure itself. Can you imagine any Lord in the nobility of England who wouldn't absolutely embrace these powers as natural to his just position and status over the lower souls who beg his attention?

15) With ashes on my forehead, and laying low upon the floor, I beg you please, please, absolve me of my guilt and shame, won't you, please, oh gracious and merciful mighty government? I am but a lowly supplicant. You have all power. Oh please, smile upon me.

16) I'll turn to the answers as well as my Wiki source in a moment, but first I must mention two books. Darkness At Noon by Arthur Koestler, and Tom Paine's 1776 Common Sense. To read Koestler is to realize that the government has taken the place of the church.

17) Your conviction at law does not satisfy the government. It wishes, it is addicted to your conviction of heart that it is good, right, justified. It must dominate you, oh lowly mean little thing that you are. And it will stop at nothing to do so.

18) I mentioned Orwell's 1984 above also. Koestler and Orwell are truly companion volumes. Both MUST be read, if we wish to face today's news, today's America, and make Her great again, returning to the true principles of our founding.

19) And then there's Tom Paine. America is an idea. No other nation in the history of nations was so founded. If you would feel that idea, you MUST read Paine's work. You must travel back to the taverns and pubs where sedition fomented, and lives were staked in the reading.

20) If you can do that, read these authors, and then return to the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney, perhaps you'll feel some of the raw, pure disgust, the noxious odor of destruction of the American Spirit I feel in their bureaucratic stipulations.

21) Please remember, someone wrote the rules they publish so boldly. And some process was employed to authorize those rules. Did no one think for a moment that someday, someone, you know, maybe just one person, might actually be innocent?

22) No, what you see there is two-fold. It is the logic of guilt. It is the logic of pure, undiluted, unlimited power of government over the individual. It is the opposite of government for the people. Rather, it is 100% government over the people, the person.

23) So, I say again, to all those of you who have argued so well against my recommended shift from #ClearFlynnNow to #PardonFlynnNow, my heart is with you. @GenFlynn should never be subjected to so debasing a procedure. Your resistance is understood.

24) Yet I say, we must right that which is wrong. If the system is wrong - it is - then it is on us to make it right. And, of all places, Wikipedia offered me the full logic this morning, better than I've pulled it together myself so far. I am so grateful.

25) Everything which follows is taken directly from the introduction to their article on Pardon. I have added asterisks to make each of the points covered clear but have changed none of their wording. You can read the original for yourself, here: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon#United_States

26)

* A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense, as if the act never occurred. 

* The pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

27)

* Pardons can be granted in many countries when individuals are deemed to have demonstrated that they have "paid their debt to society", or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them.

28)

* Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim that they were wrongfully convicted.

* In some jurisdictions of some nations, accepting a pardon may implicitly constitute an admission of guilt; the offer is refused in some cases.

29)

* Cases of wrongful conviction are nowadays more often dealt with by appeal rather than by pardon; however, 

* a pardon is sometimes offered when innocence is undisputed in order to avoid the costs that are associated with a retrial.

30) 

* Clemency plays a very important role when capital punishment is applied. 

* Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted.

31)

* Pardons can also be a source of controversy. In extreme cases, some pardons may be seen as acts of corruption by officials in the form of granting effective immunity as political favors.

32) Whining - never believe me when I whine - I complain, analysis is infinite, it's never finished. If my count is right, I believe there are 10 asterisks above. Each is worthy of its own research and analysis, case history and interpretation in this or that jurisdiction, etc.

33) All of which brings me back around to the solution I propose. Pardon by Innocence. It's been done before and exists in other jurisdictions. The lack of it in our constitution, and the egregious behavior of the Justice Department allowing no room for innocence must change.

34) Somewhere there must be the ability to redress a system gone awry. There must be a counterbalancing force. The power to crush a citizen must be constrained, and it must have a fear of impediment, of correction for its abuses. Infinite power breaks the American vision.

35) Here's what I urge. Do NOT make #GenFlynn request his pardon, at all. Rather, just grant it. A Presidential Order, NOT generated by The Office of the Pardon Attorney upon humble request, but rather, simply generated by @POTUS, himself, stating innocence emphatically.

36) Here's what I know. An injustice is being perpetrated in the name of and under the auspices of the most powerful entity on earth, the Federal Government of America. I know that We The People are suffering as a result. And I know it must end.

37) What's more, I believe that the awakened giant that elected @realDonaldTrump would thrill to his bold righting of this hellacious wrong. This is precisely the kind of loyalty to a person, and to We The People that gave us faith in him originally.

38) Always happy to make the pragmatic case, I believe his pardon of @GenFlynn would be a brilliant political move. But as you saw above, my real case is that America herself needs this precise form of correction, away from a Federal Monster, and back to a Federal Friend.

39) If we're granted the presumption of innocence in front of the Judicial Bar, then why can't our President be granted the presumption of innocence as the basis of his extraordinary power? I say our logic is off by forbidding him this good, right thing to do.

40) Besides, I don't believe for a moment he is actually forbidden it. I just think it’s how it’s evolved. And absolutely, I would wish for all presidents in future to have the precise same consideration. But in this moment, please... #PardonFlynnNow.