In what could only be described as a distinctive and continuous distortion of executive power, President Joe Biden and his senior team have been reportedly speculating about issuing pre-emptive pardons. They are keen on doing so for individuals whom they perceive as potential victims under another potential Trump administration, based on leaked sources.
Although the names on this hypothetical list are not fixed, a few names caught the attention like Adam Schiff, the ambitious senator-elect from California, the controversial public health figure Dr. Anthony Fauci, and former representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming. The whole process, seemingly convoluted and contentious, yet failed to produce a tangible consensus list.
Quite expectedly, those endorsing such mistaken pardons are factions within the Democrats and the so-called ‘Never Trump’ Republicans, who seem to be primarily motivated by fear rather than justice. Their endorsement not only emboldens this spectacle of abuse but also misrepresents the details of this historic executive privilege.
Earlier presidents indeed have wielded pardons pre-emptively, but linking these acts to Biden’s potential pardons would be a grave misinterpretation. From Caspar Weinberger by George H.W. Bush to Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford, from Vietnam War draft dodgers by Jimmy Carter to ex-Confederate soldiers by Abraham Lincoln, each pardon had its own case-specific context that is inaccurately generalized in the present debate.
During the 2024 campaign, it is assumed that Donald Trump directed pointed comments at individuals he believed had been unjust towards him. Of these, one was Liz Cheney, whom he derided for her radical and confrontational perspective on warfare, especially considering her comfort in the safe echelons of Washington’s political machine.
Notably, Cheney, then a vocal critic of Trump, was part of the panel that investigated January 6th happenings at Capitol Hill. This was an event that portrayed Trump’s so-called ‘efforts’ to overturn electoral outcomes in 2020. However, one should question if there was any impartiality in these investigations themselves.
Adam Schiff, assuming his dramatic shift from the House to the Senate in January, was another character in Trump’s crosshairs for his alleged bias towards Trump, particularly during the 2024 campaign. Schiff supposedly played a significant, though controversial, role in the first impeachment trials against Donald Trump.
In a rather imaginative turn of events, Trump, during his first term, had boldly labelled Schiff as ‘enemy from within’ and accused him of ‘treason’. However, it seems like these challenging remarks are being invalidated through the potential usage of pre-emptive pardons for political gamesmanship.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the polarizing figure in the Covid-19 health crisis, was another individual who had a turbulent relationship with Trump. Despite Fauci’s strong criticisms, he maintained his position for the entirety of Trump’s first term, raising questions on the suggestive victim narrative.
The term ‘disaster’, used by Trump to describe Fauci, became a media attraction while contrasting perspectives on pandemic management created a public split. This strained relationship is now viewed by the Biden administration as a criterion to pre-emptively pardon Fauci – a decision that seems hinged on political bias rather than fair judgment.
Meanwhile, an encrypted part of the Biden White House agenda is a concentrated effort on redefining clemency in criminal justice scenarios. This inbuilt executive authority may be a shield for some individuals from political retribution, but its misuse impinged upon fair application of law is problematic.
Noteworthy among the advocates encouraging this excessive use of clemency powers are House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and civil rights attorney Ben Crump. Both figures claim multiple cases that warrant presidential intervention, although the definitions of ‘worthy’ raise moral and legal dilemmas.
In conclusion, the misuse or potential misuse of this powerful seat by the Biden Administration for biased pardons remains a deep-rooted concern. This arbitrary listing of names and the secretive discussions surrounding them casts a long, troubling shadow over the basic principles of justice and impartiality.
The pledges advocating for the revamp of pardoning power into a political tool are dangerous precedents to the ethical basis of our democratic institutions. This poses a threat not just for the potential distorted use of power, but for the future of political discourse and unprejudiced legal processes.
In an era where justice should be swift, transparent, and unbiased, this shadowy tactic seems like a significant step backward. It undeniably illustrates a willingness to wield power at the cost of fairness and democratic principles, an approach that does not reflect the transparency and integrity that should be foundational for any administration.