Biden has just issued preemptive pardons to many who he feel are political targets of Trump. The pardons were issued to his family, Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, and members of the House committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Biden granted these pardons in order to shield these people from potential retaliation by the incoming Trump administration, as Trump has stated on record how he intends to get retribution.
Biden justified these pardons by stating how "even when individuals have done nothing wrong — and in fact have done the right thing — and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances." While his justification might be sound, this opens the door for future administrations to use pardons more expansively and preemptively.
Biden's supporters, however, agree with him because of the circumstances surrounding the decision. The individuals he prematurely pardoned, who had not been accused of crimes, faced the threat of political persecution. Dr. Fauci, for example, became a target of right-wing criticism for his role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, while Milley was attacked for speaking out against Trump’s authoritarianism.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, Sen. Adam Schiff, Dr. Anthony Fauci and former Rep. Liz Cheney were granted preemptive pardons.
Critics, though, accused Biden of setting a dangerous precedent, with Representative Dan Meuser calling it an "admission of guilt" and arguing it shielded his family and political allies from accountability. Even some recipients of the preemptive pardons, such as Senator Adam Schiff, cited concerns about eroding public trust. Biden’s pardons of individuals not under investigation, such as Fauci and Milley, drew additional backlash for being politically motivated.
Despite these controversies, Biden left office yesterday with a record number of pardons, causing debates about the limits of presidential pardons and their impact on public trust. His actions remain a point of contention, raising questions about the ethical boundaries of such power, and what it means for future presidents.
Personally, I feel like Biden's use of preemptive pardons sets a dangerous precedent that raises logistical and ethical concerns. For instance, it’s unclear to me how these specific pardons would work. Are they limited to specific crimes or future offenses? Could someone commit a crime later, knowing they’re already pardoned? That said, with Trump targeting these individuals, Biden likely felt compelled to protect his family and allies, though he probably should have acted sooner to avoid last-minute controversy. Hamilton first brought up presidential pardons in his Federalist papers where he argued they were necessary for mitigating justice with mercy, but this situation raises the question of whether or not preemptive pardons align with Hamilton's vision of government.
Biden and his son Hunter who received a pardon
Sources:
8 comments:
While this power can easily be used for bad, it is highly likely that they wouldn’t have been the target of political retaliation over past conspiracy theories. This could inadvertently ruin their public trust as they know that they can’t be sentenced or convicted but they at least still feel the public threat of their reputation and the private threat of losing their position or their job. Because of this, I think the more dangerous threat to this is the limit of who can be pardoned when. We know that Biden pardoned his family but that was just between 2014 and now, excusing them from past crimes rather than potential future crimes. There is a very high likelihood Trump could prematurely pardon some powerful people such as Elon Musk, who are then free to wreak havoc on America. I don’t think this was Hamilton’s intention with his statement but it is indeed an unintended consequence that with who we have it office, will likely not rectify the outcome.
I think using presidential pardons is only part of the trend of using governmental powers to gain political advantage. As we saw in class through the documentary on stacking the court, Supreme Court justices used to be chosen based on being qualified, but due to political divisiveness has become based on a justice's ideology. This same phenomenon is happening currently with both Trump and Biden utilizing presidential pardons to protect their allies and hurt political enemies. Adding to the examples of newly politicized powers is the power of the justice system. Trump and Biden, have both defended their pardons, by highlighting how the other side has utilized the justice system to prosecute them unfairly. If nothing changes, more and more powers are going to be used to get political gains, rather than help the country advance.
Presidential pardons have seemingly shifted in what they represent, becoming purely political, rather than focused on this idea of justice or mercy. The idea of a premmature pardon doesn't make much sense when you think about what a pardon is intended to represent, and surely does not align with Hamilton's view of the government. Considering the lack of precedent for these kinds of pardons demonstrates both the unimaginable nature of premature pardons, as well as, the untested waters the new president Donald Trump has pushed us into. In normal circumstances, it would seem pretty clear that Biden shouldn't prematurely pardon anyone, but these definitely are not normal circumstances. While not one of Biden's most moral decisions, I understand his reasoning. Especially considering how Trump has already signed several executive orders attempting to put into effect some of his more radical policies, it seems likely that without the protection of a pardon, he would have aggressively gone after his political opponents, which includes those Biden prematurely pardoned.
First, what everyone has said before me has been stellar.
As Leah mentioned, we are in "untested waters." And although I agree with critics who criticize Biden's move to further dismantle pre-existing congressional norms, one has to (in some sense) sympathize with his situation -- Biden is relentlessly attacks from Trump and the MAGA folks for simply doing his office; he is under criticism from within the Democratic party over his failure to pass on the torch to Kamala sooner; and on the world stage, it seems more and more that rather than having a "Great White Fleet" as Roosevelt imagined that sailed the globe and generally was seen as the "protector" of small nations, the United States has turned into more of a domineering figure that can barely hold itself together.
With that in mind, what Biden has done is rational, especially if you take into account the fact that Trump (no doubt) will issue many pardons on the basis of patronage rather than (ever-elusive fairy-tale-like) justice.
With that in mind, a less emphasized fact is the way these pardons can be interpreted. With Biden (and at large) the Democratic party breaking norms, one can speculate as to what this means -- is the Democratic party now ready to play hardball in the same way that the GOP has done? Or is this simply another concession that the Democratic party is making, with the pardons echoing those midnight appointments sent by Adams at the end of his term -- a last chance at holding on to political power?
Whatever the case, as Kat said, "Anything before yesterday is old news." And even though these pardons seem like a big deal, in maybe 6 days, I'll probably forget about this whole pardon situation once some new crisis emerges.
I get why Biden’s use of preemptive pardons feels unsettling—it’s a powerful tool that raises a lot of questions about accountability. But given the context, I think his logic is justifiable. People like Fauci, Milley, and Schiff were being unfairly targeted, not for crimes, but for doing their jobs and opposing Trump’s dangerous rhetoric. With Trump making it clear he’d go after his political enemies, Biden likely felt it was necessary to protect them from unjust retaliation. That said, the bigger worry is how Trump might weaponize the pardon power in the future, especially after already using it to shield January 6th insurrectionists. It’s a slippery slope that could set a dangerous precedent for how presidents use their pardon power moving forward.
I feel like the larger picture here goes back to the whole idea that the framers of the Constitution intentionally crafted it with some gray areas, which we know are often controversially interpreted. Regarding this issue, these pardons, like others have commented, can be used for bad or good. However, there is even gray area surrounding what is good and bad. For instance, of course I see Biden's pardons as good, but surely all of Trump's supporters would feel the opposite. Similarly, Trump and his supporters surely feel good about pardoning those involved in the capitol riots, though this evokes fear in many Americans for what I feel are obvious reasons. Even if Biden's pardons were premature, they were used to protect people who were being targeted unjustly, and would not deserve Trump's harsh condemnation. However with that being said, wielding such powers no matter what comes with dangerous territory, and this, combined with the pardons Trump issued his first days in office, sets potential precedent for future exertion of power.
I understand the controversey around Biden setting these preemptive pardons especially because he had chosen to do so right before leaving office. Although these last minute pardons are not as significant as Adam's midnight Federalist judge appointments, any acts committed right as a President is scheduled to leave office can bring great skepticism. In this case, I feel that no harm was brought in preemptive pardoning individuals who have never been accused of crimes, however Biden's decision to use his preemptive pardoning power may influence future Presidnets such as President Trump to use this rarely used pardon more frequently and for true criminals. Trump could now justify using this power due to the fact that former President Biden had chosen to do so, no matter if the individuals Trump may chose to pardon are serious criminals or not. For example, if Trump were to issue preemptive pardons to allies under investigation for serious charges, such as obstruction of justice or financial fraud, he could justify his actions by pointing to Biden’s precedent, even though the circumstances or severity of the cases may differ significantly.
While Biden's pardons may have been a bit aggressive and as others have said, set a bad precedent. The angry and hate driven nature of our current President especially given his history of removing anyone deemed an insubordinate attacking them politically and legally, I believe they were partially necessary. Especially as these figures were outspoken against Trump calling him an authoritarian, a dictator, and other words that could bring his retribution and wrath. However, given that Trump turned around and pardoned every single January 6th rioter than was found guilty is insulting to the nation. Pardoning those that attempted to overthrow democracy and stop the natural order of politics in the US is disgusting behavior and a much more egregious usage of the power when compared to Biden. Biden's few pardons pale in comparison to this atrocious abuse of power from our current president and sets an entirely new precedent. That a President can pardon anyone they deem unjustly tried or anyone that is loyal enough to them. I hope these actions are investigated further as the Presidential pardon may need to be revised given the abuse of it recently and the onset of anti-democratic choices.
Post a Comment