It's weird to see the Republican party embrace intellectual property theft. Levandowski stole from his employer and his colleagues at Google to enrich himself at Uber. Why would that possibly be worth a pardon?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-24/thiel-bac...
Dumb question, if Levandowski used the (allegedly) purloined IP at a new employer, could he be charged with a new crime or would he be clear to proceed under double jeopardy?
> Law and order, for this president, simply means that he and his ideological allies are above the law, while others, such as [George] Floyd, are merely subject to it.
Lewandowski's pardon request was endorsed by Peter Thiel, a huge Trump backer, so he gets to be above the law. Simple.
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/chauvin-di...
I'll point out that, now that Donald Trump is out of power, many in the GOP in general have been rather quick to turn their backs on him and outright criticize him. While he was in power, sure, Republicans politicians were politically savvy enough to side with him, knowing that the alternative was suicide. But there is now room to disagree with Trump and we're seeing many (like Mitch McConnell, and you don't get more Republican than him!) use that opportunity to distance themselves.
> While he was in power, sure, Republicans politicians were politically savvy enough to side with him, knowing that the alternative was suicide.
It's not that easy: some people were making a cold political calculation but we're far enough down the Tea Party rabbit hole that there are members who earnestly believe what used to be fringe beliefs. I mean, think about how many right now are willing to unequivocally say that Biden legitimately won the election, which is almost the weakest sop to objective reality possible. That's not going to reverse itself quickly, especially without a hard fight from everyone else still in the party. I know some people who are trying to pull the party back from the edge and I wish them success but the odds aren't looking great.
If your points about Obama pardons are valid, then they should stand on their own merits, and it shouldn't bother you if it's 'downvoted into oblivion'.
And I'm not being facetious. It's worth comparing Obama's (or any previous president's) process for granting pardons with Trump's.
You mean like Bill Clinton who pardoned his brother's drug charges?
James Robert Adelman: pardoned after being convicted of embezzling from his company, sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, which he served.
Teresa Clark: convicted of "Knowingly disposing of a firearm to a person convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year (three counts); falsification of firearms purchase forms (two counts)", sentenced to 3 years probation and 1 year of house arrest which she served.
I'm not sure what your point is in these examples. I couldn't find more details on the reasons for their pardons, but letting people clear their record well after they have served their time is a common use of pardons. None of that is true in the Anthony Levandowski case, or for that matter the slew of other pardons and commutations Trump gave to his close associates and cronies.
Most of yesterday's pardoned folks also either fully served or served a majority of their sentence.
That is one of the oldest myths about pardons. While you do not have to accept a pardon, your acceptance is not an admission of guilt. All the soldiers in the Confederacy did not have to admit their guilt. All the Vietnam draft dodgers did not have to admit their guilt. And Caspar Weinberger did not admit his guilt when Bush 41 pardoned him, because neither thought he had committed a crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths...