My guess would be Stein herself (for collaborating with Russians, even tho that’s not exactly what a “useful idiot” does).
Anyways, Stein’s actual take is more reasonable:
When I look at January 6 it was dangerous, people broke laws, they should be held accountable for breaking laws
it was a serious and problematic event,
whether the sentences were reasonable, I would have to dive more into the weeds than I have done.
Basically she would have to individually review to ensure sentences are not unduly long, harsh, etc. And there’s no commitment to actually pardon anyone, it may be no more than a check that due process was followed and punishment is not cruel and unusual, etc. (Of course, this is a politician using the usual vague words, etc.)
In fact, there’s to commitment to actually do the review, this was just in response to being asked if she thought the sentences were fair - “i don’t know, i’d have to get into the weeds to see if they were or not” perhaps with an implied “and i can’t be bothered to do that”.
My guess would be Stein herself (for collaborating with Russians, even tho that’s not exactly what a “useful idiot” does).
Anyways, Stein’s actual take is more reasonable:
Basically she would have to individually review to ensure sentences are not unduly long, harsh, etc. And there’s no commitment to actually pardon anyone, it may be no more than a check that due process was followed and punishment is not cruel and unusual, etc. (Of course, this is a politician using the usual vague words, etc.)
In fact, there’s to commitment to actually do the review, this was just in response to being asked if she thought the sentences were fair - “i don’t know, i’d have to get into the weeds to see if they were or not” perhaps with an implied “and i can’t be bothered to do that”.
Makes sense.