We are currently going through another existential media meltdown, this time over the prospect of President Trump declaring he could possibly pardon himself should he be convicted of…well, something. Our media betters are so enraptured with the concept of deposing, impeaching, ostracizing, and/or tar-and-feathering President Trump that the prospect is visceral for them. They can taste it!
So when The President does his usual – which is intentionally needling the self-important members of the press – they do not even see the stick being passed through the bars; they just wail and hector, right on cue. The astounding part is there is zero introspection with the press members — it is pure emotional reaction.
A prime example was CNN’s Jim Acosta, who lashed out at Kim Kardashian meeting with Trump over prison reform. Acosta declared this an problematic meeting, stating it was “unprecedented”. He seemed oblivious that just years earlier Acosta conducted a glowing interview with John Legend. They discussed Legend had recently met with President Obama. The subject was — prison reform. Try to imagine being so oblivious to miss yourself engaging in that which you are castigating.
The latest bout of pearl-clutching hair-yanking outrage involves Trump offering up the proposition that if he ever does endure a conviction over a perceived illegality he will simply pardon himself. The press has been in full throated outrage at such a concept. Who could ever imagine this type of resolution?!?!?
To answer — the very same press. Less than a pair of years ago.
In the days leading up to the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton (ahem) some journalists were consumed with the idea that the newly christened leader of the nation may endure illegalities regarding her computer server/email/classified docs screwup. What ever could they do to ensure their beloved remained established in the Oval office???
Mediaite offered the concept that Hillary would be able to excuse herself from accountability. The outlet cited this entry, from sister site Dan Abram’s Law & Crime. Additionally the Wall Street Journal waded into these waters, stating “The short answer to whether the Constitution permits self-pardoning is: Yes it probably does.” The American Bar Association trade magazine also raised the possibility in the days before the election. Likewise the Telegraph.
Notable with all the legal pontificating in the fall of ‘16: there was no resultant furor from the collected journalists about what a threat to our national existence the concept of self-pardoning carried. The idea of Hillary legally excusing herself was deemed more of a finger in the eye of her political foes, a justifiable reaction to all of the sexist opposition the poor dear had faced. But absent was any sense of danger we all faced as a result of the theoretical defense strategy.
Today that all has changed. In just about eighteen months’ time the very idea of the President executing a pardon to his mirror has the journos in a lather. Somehow the nation is consummately imperiled. Except the prospect is no less theoretical with Trump. He has done nothing more than voice the possibility. The media is incapable of pumping the brakes and pausing for a moment for introspection.
The President has not been convicted of a crime, and thus the talk of a pardon is just that. There have not even been charges brought up. Yet the press has fallen into an outrage stupor in order to wield some form of unearned condescension on the subject. Once again, they have allowed Trump to get them into a wad of turmoil.
Most oblivious, he has done so using their hypothetical. Journalists are upset that he has the temerity to actually use their own concept.
for less hysterical coverage than the pressjoin me @MartiniShark