Preemptive Pardons explained

Anytime the professional leftists lose anything, they immediately become victims.  Whether defeated in the battle of ideas (retreat to safe spaces), defeated in the field of pop culture, or even defeated linguistically through debate (words are violence).  Whenever the professional left loses, they immediately become victims.  It’s what they do.

The professional political left, newest version from the Chicago spawn of Dohrn/Ayers, has been waging full combat Lawfare via a weaponized government for the past 16 years.  However, Obama/Plouffe were defeated, “their kind” rose again and won the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.

What we see in this “preemptive pardon” narrative, is a repeat of the victim narrative.  This time the White House discussion boils down to ‘Lawfare agents must be protected from any retaliation for their action’.  Pardons presumably provide the mechanism to protect the victims.  In the big picture of ideology, this is a continuation of the same mindset.

Politico started the narrative with an outline {SEE HERE} saying the White House was having an internal debate as to whether Joe Biden should preemptively issue pardons to members of the J6 committee, members who constructed false impeachment accusations, members within the DOJ who fabricated political cases using the Special Counsel process, or generally people on the political left who supported/facilitated all the aforementioned false attack fronts.

As the narrative is told, all those who supported the attacks against President-Elect Trump and his allies, now need to be protected from “retribution.”  Inherent in the argument, and within the use of pardons, is the baseline that some form of illegal activity was taking place.  Heck, if it wasn’t unlawful conduct, then no pardon would be needed.  This is the political catch-22 created by the preemptive pardon narrative.

link