Chattanooga attorney Lee Davis, a Democrat, wrote an opinion piece in this newspaper claiming Robin Smith’s plea for grace in the form of pardon from President Donald J. Trump rings hollow, but it is his commentary that misses its mark.
Mr. Davis, who to my knowledge never stepped one foot in the federal courthouse during the criminal trial where Robin testified as the government’s star witness, claims unequivocally that she “was not targeted because of her conservative values.” While there is no possible way Mr. Davis could know why Robin Smith was targeted by her government for prosecution, he only doubles down on this speculative news later, calling Robin’s claim “demonstrably false.”
Why? Because Robin Smith never made these arguments during her sentencing hearing. Even a first-year law student understands that cooperating witnesses don’t blame the very government they are working with of “lawfare” when requesting leniency.
I have been involved in Robin’s case from day one, the day of the raids, Jan. 8, 2021. From that day until her sentencing — almost five years — no one has ever told me Robin Smith deserved to spend one day in prison. Robin Smith is not asking for Mr. Davis’ forgiveness, something he should do anyway, if he is a Christian. Rather, Robin Smith is simply seeking a presidential pardon.
While Mr. Davis failed to reference the president’s power to pardon in his article, he predictably quoted Alexander Hamilton instead — that provision in the U.S. Constitution states: “[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That’s it. Nothing else. A president can pardon for a good reason, bad reason or no reason at all. Notably, the Constitution does not state, as Mr. Davis contends, pardons are reserved as a remedy for “wrongful convictions or extraordinary rehabilitation,” although both of these would apply to Robin’s case.