All posts by BenIndy

Authoritarian Rule, Democracy under attack, Donald Trump, Presidential pardon power, Stephen Golub

Benician Stephen Golub: Pardon Me

Stranger Than Fiction

A Promised Land, by Stephen Golub, December 6, 2025

The story could inspire a big-budget Hollywood political thriller. A cocaine kingpin – the corrupt president of a foreign country, no less – is convicted and jailed in the United States. But behind the scenes, right-wing tech billionaires persuade an equally corrupt American president to pardon the foreigner. In a violent side-story, the US president proudly orders illegal, lethal military attacks that kill scores of impoverished Venezuelan fishing villagers (some of whom may be small-scale traffickers) whose coke isn’t even destined for our shores and whose possible crimes pale in comparison with the kingpin’s.

In the hypothetical Hollywood version of this story, the truth comes out, the former president goes back to prison and his American counterpart resigns in shame.

In 2025, however, there is no shame and reality is stranger than fiction. Donald Trump publicly boasted of his planed pardon for former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández before then granting it. Lost in the swirl of Trump’s other transgressions, the story disappeared from the headlines soon after first surfacing.

The element of the hypothetical Hollywood version that hasn’t yet been proven in real life is the tech billionaires’ involvement. But, as reported in Mother Jones magazine,  their backing for both Trump and VP JD Vance on the one hand and their proposed, Hernandez-backed state-within-a-state in Honduras on the other surely looks suspicious.

Even though in normal times such a story would be the stuff of massive scandal, it’s now business as usual when it comes to Trump’s pardons (not to mention so much else). And given that we’re now almost a decade into Trump’s reign of political terror, we must ask what’s normal anymore.

But Wait! There’s Much More…

As horrid as it is, the Hernandez story is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Trump’s abuse of the presidential pardon power. It’s true that certain of his predecessors have also milked that constitutionally granted capacity for personal or political benefit. Bill Clinton’s 2001 pardon of disgraced financier Marc Rich, apparently in return for donations to the Clinton Library and the Democratic Party, is a case in point. But neither Clinton nor anyone else comes close to the breadth and depth of what Trump has done.

Trump established his exploitation of pardons at the very start of his presidency. As summarized by an excellent post by attorney Kim Wehle at The Unpopulist site, “One of his first acts on returning to office was to issue pardons to hundreds of rioters from the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, including those who had viciously assaulted police officers.”  As Wehle further explains:

“It should be no surprise that some of these rioters, having been pardoned for one act of political violence, keep on plotting new acts of political violence. In February, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was arrested at the Capitol (again) for assaulting a protester. In July, Edward Kelley, who was “the fourth person to unlawfully enter the Capitol building at the forefront of the mob” and attack an officer, was convicted for a new plot to assassinate “36 individual federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel” whom he blamed for his arrest on the Capitol riot charges. Christopher Moynihan was arrested in October for planning to assassinate House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.”

In an equally valuable post at the same site, author Robert Tracinski summarizes  some of Trump’s many egregious 2025 pardons:

“…from a corrupt sheriff convicted in a “cash for badges” scheme, to disgraced former Congressman George Santos, who may have diverted election funds to support his lavish lifestyle but “was 100% for Trump,” to the healthcare fraud conviction of the husband of Republican Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger, a Trump ally…

“Trump pardoned an executive convicted of tax fraud after the executive’s mother gave $1 million at a Trump fundraiser. The judge who sentenced him said: “there is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card for the rich.” Under Trump, there is…

“In October, he pardoned cryptocurrency fraudster Changpeng Zhao after Zhao’s company, Binance, made a deal to boost World Liberty Financial, the Trump family crypto venture.”

Legitimizing the Rule of Lawlessness

Ironically, however, the most significant pardon we’ve seen recently has not been issued by Trump, but in effect  for Trump, by the Supreme Court. Though not literally a pardon, Wehle addresses the Court’s action quite well:

“Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s unconscionable [2024] decision in Trump v. United States, the so-called immunity ruling that essentially sanctioned American presidents using official power to commit crimes without any penalty, the legal perversions coming out of the White House have been legion. So far, Donald Trump’s actions, along with the Supreme Court’s endorsement of them, have effectively kneecapped the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, the Appointments, Spending, and Emoluments Clauses, the 14th Amendment’s ban on holding office after having engaged in insurrection, Article I’s vesting of legislative power in Congress, and Congress’s power to lay and collect tariffs. Trump is acting this way because he no longer has any incentive not to.

“In that immunity ruling, a 6-3 majority held that the exercise of “core” powers under Article II of the Constitution is absolutely immune from legal oversight, even if used criminally, and that lesser “official actions” are presumptively immune unless prosecutors can show that criminally confining a presidential act would pose no “dangers on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

In other words, this was Trump’s own get-out-of-jail-free card, including for corruptly influenced pardons since they’re within the presidency’s “core” powers.

We’re accustomed to thinking that no one is above the law, at least in principle and hopefully in fact. The Supreme Court decided the opposite.

Of course, the immediate and history-shattering  benefit of the Court’s egregious ruling wasn’t for President Trump in 2025 but for Indicted Trump in 2024: the decision so delayed and constrained Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election that Smith dropped the charges after Trump’s 2024 electoral victory.

A Larger Problem

An even larger problem we face, however, isn’t Trump’s legal transgressions but the fact that they apparently don’t dent his political and moral standing for large parts of the public. Yes, his approval numbers are dropping to about 40 percent  or less in most surveys. And yes, the prospects of his suffering more political reversals are rising. This is evinced by everything from far-right-wing Majorie Taylor Greene’s declarations of independence to the Democrats’ increasing prospects for retaking the House of Representatives next year to  the possibility of yet more sordid Jeffery Epstein revelations soiling Trump’s brand even among supporters.

But whatever happened to someone simply paying a penalty for  cheating and lying, not least by blatantly exploiting a presidential power to pardon political and financial allies? Like so many of Trump’s disruptions, this is all going on in plain sight and is in effect pardoned, so to speak, by much of the public.

And while we certainly can understand folks prioritizing the damages he’s doing to our pocketbooks in assessing him, it doesn’t seem like his consistently egregious self-dealing makes much  of a difference in his standing. It’s just another day at the Oval Office.

So, with great respect for everyone who’s fighting for democracy, national security and the rule of law, or who dread the crisis even as they simply try to get by during these tough times, certain words may sum up how history will judge many other Americans who condone or endorse what Trump is doing:

Really regrettable.

Perhaps understandable.

Or, just maybe, unpardonable.

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

Stephen Golub writes about democracy and politics, both in America and abroad, at A Promised Land: America as a Developing Country.

…and… here’s more Golub on the Benicia Independent

Back to top

Bay Area Air District, Benicia, Cancer, Just transition, Stephen Golub, Valero Benicia Refinery

Stephen Golub: This October 29 Meeting is Vital for Benicia’s Future

‘The devil is in the details of how the  Air District’s new Local Community Investment Fund’s (LCIF) grants will be awarded’

 Stephen Golub, A Promised Land – America as a Developing Country

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. October 26, 2025. [First published in the Benicia Herald on 10/26/25.]

This really is important: On Wednesday, October 29, the Bay Area Air District is holding a 5:30-7 pm Zoom meeting (Webinar) to discuss draft guidelines for use of penalty/settlement funds for air pollution violations. As a result of the $82 million Air District fine for Valero’s 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions, Benicia is by far the greatest potential beneficiary so far: $54 million (plus possible interest) is supposed to be set aside for Benicia-specific projects.

But there’s potentially big trouble in paradise, which is why Benicians’ Zoom participation in the October 29 meeting is crucial. The devil is in the details of how the  Air District’s new Local Community Investment Fund’s (LCIF) grants will be awarded for Benicia and other communities, starting next year. If the guidelines impose a bureaucratic, restrictive process, Benicia will have considerable trouble weathering the financial storm that will lash us (also starting next year) as Valero’s contributions to the city coffers come to an end.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions or urge others to do so. But I fear that the restrictive approach could be the direction the Air District takes. I hope that I’m wrong.

We’re talking about $54 million or more that could and should mainly be decided on by Benicia, rather than the staff of the Community Investments Office (CIO), which administers the Fund.

A restrictive, top-down approach dominated by CIO staff  rather than driven by Benicia and other communities may also limit our ability to best grapple with the very challenges the CIO’s site says the Fund aims to address: “Funding will support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.”

Along with serving other purposes, the Fund  can and should contribute to budget support that will help close the city’s post-Valero financial gap for a number of years. This will  strengthen Benicia’s “economic resilience for a just transition.”

I emphasize this because there’s  another Benicia-specific factor at play here. The Air District failed to uncover Valero’s egregious toxic emissions for over 15 years. It certainly fell short by waiting over three additional years to inform Benicia after it found out.

Had this information come to light far sooner, might it have helped cut down on Benicia cancer rates that are far higher than state and county levels (including nearly double California’s breast cancer incidence)? That’s hard to say.

Furthermore, it might be counterproductive to press this point on the Air District, or to do so in any but the most diplomatic ways.

Finally,  to the Air District’s great credit, it installed new, vigorous leadership after this fiasco came to light in 2022. But this all weighs in favor of the Air District awarding the LCIF grants flexibly to Benicia.

Another factor that weighs in terms of the flexible approach is Benicia’s nearly unprecedented situation: Refineries don’t close every day, to put it mildly. From financial recovery to environmental clean-up (complicated by Valero land previously being used for military ordinance testing), our challenges are daunting – even as the opportunities for our community’s quality of life, public health and economic prosperity (such as through tourism development) are inspiring. A just transition requires that the Air District take a just  approach to partnership with Benicia.

Thus, if the CIO finalizes the guidelines in ways that allow our city appropriate flexibility in the use of the funds, it will be a boon to Benicia. But the benefits extend beyond Benicia; similar flexibility will be best for other Bay Area communities regarding other Air District fines.

The 90-minute October 29 Webinar is our only chance to hear about and weigh in on the draft guidelines via a public forum (with perhaps two minutes per public comment). Let’s not let it slide by. Even if you don’t want to comment during the meeting, simply showing up (albeit via Zoom) can show that we care.

There’s already cause for concern, in that the draft guidelines won’t be released until tomorrow, October 27, just two days before the meeting. That’s precious little time for the public to review them. But let’s try.

So, what can you do?

  1. To participate in the Zoom, you must pre-register. Here’s the link: https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/community-health/community-investments-office. You might also be able to find it by searching online for something like Air District Community Investments Office.
  2. When you reach that link, please scroll down to the “Meetings and Events” section. Click the “Pre-register” box there and fill in the required information.
  3. Once you get the CIO confirmation email, scroll down to a blue box that says, “Join Webinar.” (While that link is functional, of course it won’t actually become active until the October 29 meeting.)
  4. If you wish to weigh in before or after the meeting – and perhaps to receive the guidelines as soon as they are issued on October 27 – you can email you comments, questions and guidelines request to communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. (The comments deadline is less than a month later, on November 25.)
  5. If you do decide to participate, be it via Zoom or email, I’m sure you’ll have your own ideas on what to prioritize. But for what it’s worth, to my mind the most basic message is that Benicia and other beneficiary communities standing to benefit from the Local Community Investment Fund should have as much leeway as possible in utilizing the settlements/penalties they each receive, as long as they broadly fit within the Air District funding parameters I’ve flagged: “support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.” This is consistent with and in fact mandated by the Air District’s emphasis on partnering with rather than dictating to Bay Area communities.

I’m harping on all this not just because of the impact on Benicia, but because most of my career involved advising funding agencies on the best foci and approaches for awarding grants for community-oriented, environmental and other projects. I worked for and with the Asia, Ford and Open Societies Foundations, as well as the American, British and Danish aid agencies and numerous other funders.

The single biggest lesson I took away from those 35+ years of work was this: Grants work best when they are as simple as possible and provide as much leeway as possible to responsible local governments or community groups that receive them, as long as sensible financial auditing is in place.

If the CIO goes down this flexible road, it will be best for Benicia (and the Bay Area) in terms of advancing  clean air, public health, economic resilience and the post-Valero transition. It also will ensure the most efficient use of funds.

To be clear, I’m not saying that the Air District, via the CIO, should simply turn over the $54 million or more to Benicia; though that might make sense, I don’t believe that Air District rules allow this. I also don’t doubt the sincerity and dedication of the CIO staff who will administer the Fund.

But the finalized guidelines should provide the necessary flexibility for Benicia and other communities to decide how to use the funds within the broad parameters the CIO has already set. It’s our future that’s on the line.

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND

…and… here’s more Golub on the Benicia Independent

Democracy under attack, Donald Trump, Indivisible, Proposition 50

Neighbor to Neighbor: How to help pass Prop 50

INDIVISIBLE: NEIGHBOR2NEIGHBOR

Friends –

Every king needs his lackeys, and our wannabe king wants to redraw congressional district lines to install his loyal subjects in Congress — giving Republicans permanent control of the House. But Californians are fighting back with Proposition 50.

A protestor in California holds up a handmade NO KINGS sign while two women rollerblade past in the foreground and dozens of other No Kings protestors march in the background -- photo courtesy of zimmagery.com
A protestor in California holds up a handmade NO KINGS sign while two women rollerblade past in the foreground and dozens of other No Kings protestors march in the background — photo courtesy of zimmagery.com

On Saturday, millions of Californians showed up to say NO to kings. Now, we need to harness similar grassroots energy to make sure our neighbors turn out to VOTE YES ON 50!

Will you sign up for Neighbor2Neighbor to get out the vote for Prop 50? We’ll send you a list of 10 like-minded neighbors’ doors that you can knock on your own time.

Our Neighbor2Neighbor program is proven to be one of the most powerful get out the vote tools we have. Check out our earlier email if you need more info, and then take a moment to plug in right now.

—– ORIGINAL MESSAGE —–

Hello California Indivisibles!

Hundreds of you joined our state-wide call this week where we launched our revolutionary voter contact tool in support of Proposition 50.

But now, we need thousands of folks signing up to use our Neighbor2Neighbor tool to get out the vote and ensure Prop 50 passes.

If you’re on our list, you probably understand the stakes here — Donald Trump and his allies are attempting to rig the 2026 midterms using an unprecedented power grab to redraw district lines in red states and hand Republicans more congressional seats.

Their goal is permanent Republican control of the House of Representatives so Trump and his cronies can continue hollowing out our government (and our healthcare system) to pay for tax breaks for billionaires and a lawless secret police force with the resources of a national military. Proposition 50 levels the playing field without an unfair advantage for Republicans in the 2026 midterms.

But some of your neighbors might not know the stakes. Some of them might not even be planning to vote. YOU can change that — by volunteering to canvass your own neighborhood, on your own time, using Neighbor2Neighbor.

Sign up here to knock 10 doors using Neighbor2Neighbor >>

What is Neighbor2Neighbor?

Neighbor2Neighbor is an opportunity to make sure Californians are talking to each other about Proposition 50 — and about how California is leading the charge to stand up to the MAGA bullies who ignore what American voters want.

People who hear from a trusted neighbor are up to two times more likely to vote than those who do not. The key to success is connecting on a personal level with those we have the most influence with: our community.

Here’s how to get going:

  1. You sign up online. Simply sign up at this link. No app to download, no fancy tech. Just a signup form and we’ll get you what you need.
  2. We send you a list of 10 like-minded neighbors, a simple script, and an optional printout to leave behind! N2N focuses on folks who largely agree with us but might need an extra push or reminder to vote.
  3. You knock on their doors and have a brief conversation about voting. Choose when to get out there on your own time!
  4. You mark your “Neighbors” page once you talk to them, so we know what voters you’ve connected with.

That’s it!

No complex training. No complicated application. Just an opportunity to get out and meet the person you see while walking your dog, the friendly parents whose kids go to school with yours, or the neighbors with the fun Halloween decor — and increase the probability that they all show up to vote.

GET YOUR 10 DOORS >>

Together, we can make sure Prop 50 passes and our democracy stays strong. We hope to see you out there soon!

In solidarity,
Indivisible Team

P.S. Please feel free to forward this email to other Californians who may want to get out there and knock doors! Each person you help sign up doubles your impact and helps us reach 10 or more like-minded Californians.
Benicia CA, Just transition, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

Elizabeth Patterson: Great questions for Valero bailout

The city and other regional agencies should have a seat at the stakeholder table

By Elizabeth Patterson, September 11, 2025 [posted belatedly here on 9/17/25]

Brenden Chavez is a graduate student in Urban Planning at San José State University with roots in Benicia, studying refinery closures, land use & environmental planning, and community health.”

Brenden and I have been discussing the role of the community in decisions about Valero decommissioning and future land uses. He contacted me because of my work as Mayor and using the public process for major issues. Collaborative planning involves empowering the public and not being led by top down process. I will share his paper on this when it is ready. Meanwhile I thought you’d like to see his great questions, as follows:

I saw the recent news about the state possibly giving Valero a bailout of $80 to $200 million to keep them operating. This is a huge development, and honestly, a bit unexpected. My thought is that Sac politicians are motivated by fear of gas going to $8/gallon. If this goes through, it’s a setback to the state’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2045. Unfortunately, there is no concrete ‘just transition’ strategy to help cities like Benicia, which are economically dependent on the fossil fuel industry. I’m trying to wrap my head around what this means for Benicia. A few questions come to mind:

    • If Sacramento is willing to spend $80 billion to save Valero, why can’t they do the same for the city/county? Backfilling the general fund, remediation seed money, retraining programs, etc.
    • Is there any way for the city or other regional agencies to have a seat at the stakeholder table, since the state is essentially repaying them their $82 million settlement with taxpayer money?
    • If Valero gets bailed out, does that give other refineries like Phillips 66 the power to lobby for the same treatment? How does that shift the state’s long-term sustainability goals?

Elizabeth Patterson