Paul Buckingham - Blog Philosophy and life in general

Thanksgiving seems to be a peculiarly American idea. It is said to have started off in 1614 with a feast to celebrate, for once, a good harvest. The story goes that the settlers were joined by 90 or so Wampanoag who made a surprise appearance at the settlement’s gate. Over the next few days the two groups socialised without incident, the Wampanoag contributing venison to the feast, and the settlers the fowl which they had already hunted down. This social contact started a time of peace between the two groups which lasted for 60 years, when a major war broke out between them.

Thanksgiving celebrations though were controversial: they did not really fit with the supposedly secular nature of American society. Under pressure from his wife, however, Abraham Lincoln finally established thanksgiving as a national holiday.

Quite when it became customary for a turkey or two to be ‘pardoned’ and so saved from the oven, I am unclear. But it has become an integral part of the celebrations. Although normally a jokey celebration, this year, the Donald, that well-known first-generation son of settlers, made it political by denying that the previous year’s turkeys had been legally pardoned because, he said, Biden had used an autopen to sign the pardons.

I see that at the moment in Italy there is a proposal to provide an amnesty for those who may have failed ‘by accident’ to get planning permission for the construction of or major changes to their houses.

Now I know that this would certainly not be the first time. It has been done for electoral purposes many times in the past. But La Meloni had said that this sort of conduct would not be engaged in by her government. Her party, I Fratelli d’italia, however are apparently supporting such a move. Others are nodding in approval, but only if each case is looked at on its merits. Something of a bureaucratic nightmare.

But also a nightmare for the rule of law. After all, if we have laws which are observed by most people, but not by others on the basis that, like buses, an amnesty will be sure to come along at some point, then how can we say that the country is subject to the rule of law? If it was some small matter, then it might be understandable. But deliberate abuse of planning laws is no a small matter. It can be very profitable.

But all budding dictators know how to use a pardon. King Strumpf is showing himself to be a past master at this. Of course many previous presidents were not averse to helping their family and friends out. Joe Biden broke his promise when he issued a pardon to his son Hunter for any “offences against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jan. 1, 2014 through Dec. 1, 2024.” But Trump has taken it to new heights.

The anti-federalist opponents of the Constitution worried that the office of the presidency would be too powerful. A leading politician of that time wrote: “To be the fountain of all honours in the United States is in reality to be a king.” The anti-federalists were certain that at some point a man of low character would take office and twist the government to his own narrow ends. “He will spare no artifice, no address, and no exertions, to increase the powers and importance of it. The servile supporters of his wishes will be placed in all offices, and tools constantly employed to aid his views and sound his praise.” Sound familiar?

The anti-federalists especially feared that the president would use his pardon power to corrupt the nation. “The unrestrained power of granting pardon” they wrote in 1787 “may be used to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.” The tyrant, as they imagined him, was someone, as Aristotle wrote, with “no regard to the common good, except for his own advantage”.

From the vantage point of 2025, the anti-federalists might as well be describing not a king, but Donald Trump, who seems to embody their every nightmare: the man who ascends to high executive office “without the virtue, moderation and love of liberty” needed to preserve republican government and will do everything to avoid “sinking from the heights of splendour and power.”

And Trump, just as they feared, has weaponised the pardon as a tool of executive lawbreaking and misconduct. He began with his blanket pardon of the January 6th rioters along with a pardon for the former ‘Proud Boys’ leader Enrique Tarrio and a commutation for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the ‘Oath Keepers’. The rioters, working on behalf of Trump, had tried to overthrow constitutional government in the United States in an effort to “Stop the Steal”. And Trump, with gratitude, has freed them to try again. Various of them have since committed further offences involving violence and are already back inside.

Trump is clearly the uncontested, democratically elected leader in presidential graft and influence trading. He and his family have made billions of dollars off the presidency, from crypto deals seemingly shaped by the promise of government intervention on behalf of the industry, to selling access to the president by way of his clubs and resorts around the world and of course the sale of ‘Merch’ from his web-site.

But the president’s corruption does not end there. Trump has used the power of pardon to liberate a number of white-collar criminals. In March, as someone keen on the profit-making potential (for him) of crypto currency, he pardoned the founders of a crypto exchange after they had pleaded guilty to money laundering. In May, Trump commuted the sentence of Lawrence Duran, who had been convicted of Medicare fraud and money laundering. That same month, he commuted the sentence of Marian Morgan, sentenced to a 35-year prison term for stealing millions of dollars from investors in a Ponzi scheme.

And now at a time when Trump is waging war on so-called narco-boats, he has freed the ex-president of Honduras from a 45 year term following conviction for drug-smuggling. Why? All professed to be his supporters and to have been ‘persecuted’ by the Biden government in the same way that Trump claims to have been.

In Israel we have another person determined to cling on to power in order to avoid facing court proceedings on corruption charges. After Trump downplayed the seriousness of the accusations – ‘just a few cigars and some champagne’ without mentioning the rest of the allegations - he suggested the grant of a pardon by Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog. Netanyahu then formally asked for a presidential pardon for the charges, but without admitting that he’d done anything wrong or resigning.

To say the least, it has proved controversial. Netanyahu has long rejected the cases as a political attempt to remove him from office, but his detractors say democracy itself is at stake. They see the campaign for a pardon as an extension of the judicial reforms attempted before the attacks of October 7, 2023. These, his critics said, sought to centralise power, weaken the judiciary and so weaken democracy. The reforms led to mass protests, a brain drain and a refusal by some army reservists to show up for duty.

In contrast, we have gone through nightmares of indecision in this country trying to decide how to overcome the wrongful convictions of the postmasters. We instinctively recoil from the idea that a government should interfere with the decisions of courts. It sets a bad precedent for the doctrine of the separation of powers. But in this instance, there have been so many wrongful convictions that to deal with them individually before the Court of Appeal would take far too long.

We can’t however offer pardons to the postmasters: that would imply that they were guilty. And so legislation has been passed, allowing any postmaster prosecuted by the Post Office to apply for his conviction to be overturned. Of course, that opens the way for some postmasters rightly convicted to make an application, but the government has said that the possible exoneration of some genuinely guilty of crimes was "a price worth paying".

We though in the UK are in the strange position of having a king with a prerogative power to pardon, a power of which we make minimal use. Maybe because our politicians would have to persuade the king that the pardon was justified before he would put his name to it? So then, ironically, maybe a constitutional monarchy is better than a president subject to a constitution? Odd.

Paul Buckingham

8 December 2025

	Thanksgiving and pardons

	Thanksgiving seems to be a peculiarly American idea. It is said to have started off in 1614 with a feast to celebrate, for once, a good harvest. The story goes that the settlers were joined by 90 or so Wampanoag who made a surprise appearance at the settlement’s gate. Over the next few days the two groups socialised without incident, the Wampanoag contributing venison to the feast, and the settlers the fowl which they had already hunted down. This social contact started a time of peace between the two groups which lasted for 60 years, when a major war broke out between them. Thanksgiving celebrations though were controversial: they did not really fit with the supposedly secular nature of American society. Under pressure from his wife, however, Abraham Lincoln finally established thanksgiving as a national holiday. Quite when it became customary for a turkey or two to be ‘pardoned’ and so saved from the oven, I am unclear. But it has become an integral part of the celebrations. Although normally a jokey celebration, this year, the Donald, that well-known first-generation son of settlers, made it political by denying that the previous year’s turkeys had been legally pardoned because, he said, Biden had used an autopen to sign the pardons. I see that at the moment in Italy there is a proposal to provide an amnesty for those who may have failed ‘by accident’ to get planning permission for the construction of or major changes to their houses. Now I know that this would certainly not be the first time. It has been done for electoral purposes many times in the past. But La Meloni had said that this sort of conduct would not be engaged in by her government. Her party, I Fratelli d’italia, however are apparently supporting such a move. Others are nodding in approval, but only if each case is looked at on its merits. Something of a bureaucratic nightmare. But also a nightmare for the rule of law. After all, if we have laws which are observed by most people, but not by others on the basis that, like buses, an amnesty will be sure to come along at some point, then how can we say that the country is subject to the rule of law? If it was some small matter, then it might be understandable. But deliberate abuse of planning laws is no a small matter. It can be very profitable. But all budding dictators know how to use a pardon. King Strumpf is showing himself to be a past master at this. Of course many previous presidents were not averse to helping their family and friends out. Joe Biden broke his promise when he issued a pardon to his son Hunter for any “offences against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jan. 1, 2014 through Dec. 1, 2024.” But Trump has taken it to new heights. The anti-federalist opponents of the Constitution worried that the office of the presidency would be too powerful. A leading politician of that time wrote: “To be the fountain of all honours in the United States is in reality to be a king.” The anti-federalists were certain that at some point a man of low character would take office and twist the government to his own narrow ends. “He will spare no artifice, no address, and no exertions, to increase the powers and importance of it. The servile supporters of his wishes will be placed in all offices, and tools constantly employed to aid his views and sound his praise.” Sound familiar? The anti-federalists especially feared that the president would use his pardon power to corrupt the nation. “The unrestrained power of granting pardon” they wrote in 1787 “may be used to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.” The tyrant, as they imagined him, was someone, as Aristotle wrote, with “no regard to the common good, except for his own advantage”. From the vantage point of 2025, the anti-federalists might as well be describing not a king, but Donald Trump, who seems to embody their every nightmare: the man who ascends to high executive office “without the virtue, moderation and love of liberty” needed to preserve republican government and will do everything to avoid “sinking from the heights of splendour and power.” And Trump, just as they feared, has weaponised the pardon as a tool of executive lawbreaking and misconduct. He began with his blanket pardon of the January 6th rioters along with a pardon for the former ‘Proud Boys’ leader Enrique Tarrio and a commutation for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the ‘Oath Keepers’. The rioters, working on behalf of Trump, had tried to overthrow constitutional government in the United States in an effort to “Stop the Steal”. And Trump, with gratitude, has freed them to try again. Various of them have since committed further offences involving violence and are already back inside. Trump is clearly the uncontested, democratically elected leader in presidential graft and influence trading. He and his family have made billions of dollars off the presidency, from crypto deals seemingly shaped by the promise of government intervention on behalf of the industry, to selling access to the president by way of his clubs and resorts around the world and of course the sale of ‘Merch’ from his web-site. But the president’s corruption does not end there. Trump has used the power of pardon to liberate a number of white-collar criminals. In March, as someone keen on the profit-making potential (for him) of crypto currency, he pardoned the founders of a crypto exchange after they had pleaded guilty to money laundering. In May, Trump commuted the sentence of Lawrence Duran, who had been convicted of Medicare fraud and money laundering. That same month, he commuted the sentence of Marian Morgan, sentenced to a 35-year prison term for stealing millions of dollars from investors in a Ponzi scheme. And now at a time when Trump is waging war on so-called narco-boats, he has freed the ex-president of Honduras from a 45 year term following conviction for drug-smuggling. Why? All professed to be his supporters and to have been ‘persecuted’ by the Biden government in the same way that Trump claims to have been. In Israel we have another person determined to cling on to power in order to avoid facing court proceedings on corruption charges. After Trump downplayed the seriousness of the accusations – ‘just a few cigars and some champagne’ without mentioning the rest of the allegations - he suggested the grant of a pardon by Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog. Netanyahu then formally asked for a presidential pardon for the charges, but without admitting that he’d done anything wrong or resigning. To say the least, it has proved controversial. Netanyahu has long rejected the cases as a political attempt to remove him from office, but his detractors say democracy itself is at stake. They see the campaign for a pardon as an extension of the judicial reforms attempted before the attacks of October 7, 2023. These, his critics said, sought to centralise power, weaken the judiciary and so weaken democracy. The reforms led to mass protests, a brain drain and a refusal by some army reservists to show up for duty. In contrast, we have gone through nightmares of indecision in this country trying to decide how to overcome the wrongful convictions of the postmasters. We instinctively recoil from the idea that a government should interfere with the decisions of courts. It sets a bad precedent for the doctrine of the separation of powers. But in this instance, there have been so many wrongful convictions that to deal with them individually before the Court of Appeal would take far too long. We can’t however offer pardons to the postmasters: that would imply that they were guilty. And so legislation has been passed, allowing any postmaster prosecuted by the Post Office to apply for his conviction to be overturned. Of course, that opens the way for some postmasters rightly convicted to make an application, but the government has said that the possible exoneration of some genuinely guilty of crimes was "a price worth paying". We though in the UK are in the strange position of having a king with a prerogative power to pardon, a power of which we make minimal use. Maybe because our politicians would have to persuade the king that the pardon was justified before he would put his name to it? So then, ironically, maybe a constitutional monarchy is better than a president subject to a constitution? Odd. Paul Buckingham 8 December 2025
	Home A Point of View Philosophy Who am I? Links Photos of Annecy