In a state of affairs that would make any respectable citizen question the state of our democracy, President Joe Biden’s alleged charity in pardoning his son Hunter resonated shockwaves across political circles. The conservative faction, well aware of the implications, didn’t mince their words in pointing out the sheer hypocrisy in the move. Yet, notwithstanding the true intent of such an act, even moderates and liberals can’t prevaricate that fact. Giving a familial bailout under the guise of a pardon does erode the foundations of the rule of law and sparks an ominous precedent that could be hijacked by none other than Donald Trump.
The pundits, who initially advocated for such a pardon, have proven themselves wrong. New heights in potential abuses of power are being broached as media outlets like Politico and The New York Times report. The Biden administration is rumored to be on the precipice of doling out pre-emptive pardons for a laundry list of those categorized on Trump’s ‘enemies list.’ To save them from the woes of baseless harassment and prosecution, it seems that the current administration is merely exacerbating the issue.
Emphasizing the reality that no specific laws have been violated by these ‘enemies,’ Trump and his team have expressed their intent to utilize the Department of Justice to target political adversaries. While this may be a clear exploitation of justice for personal gain, it seems that the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ holds little importance in this administration. An alarming precedent is being established, as not a single president in American history has dared to make such promises.
Biden’s strategy to use this unsettling tactic is more in line with authoritarian regimes and notorious banana republics than anything resembling American democracy. The president-elect has consistently affirmed his intention to use such measures. Never before has it become so dire for citizens to question the direction that their leaders are taking them in.
Proponents of this strategy might argue that the people on Trump’s ‘enemies list’ need not fear if they are innocent – however, this fails to consider the societal implications, personal violations, and significant legal costs that can easily tally into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not to mention, the burden of mounting legal defenses instead of living peaceful lives is a punishment in and of itself.
Consider the example of Dr. Steven Hatfill. A man wrongfully accused of mailing anthrax envelopes in 2001 to significant figures. Despite his innocence, the FBI served a dish of trauma, by raiding his home and scrutinizing his every move. This malfeasance led to him losing his job and being forced into hiding. It’s tragic that he was not even indicted.
The question we should ask ourselves is, will the individuals on Trump’s ‘enemies list’ have to endure the same routine? Sadly, considering Trump’s track record of instigating lawsuits to suppress opposition, there’s no reason to believe he would restrain himself.
Trump, seeking to ascertain his grips on power, often appointed loyalists, content to dance to his tune. The rippling effects of these choices bode ill for anyone who would dare to cross his path, including public figures, law enforcement officials, and journalists, all once named or indirectly threatened.
One such person, former Justice Department official Sarah Isgur. Despite being on the ‘enemies list,’ the self-righteous official is yet to accept any pardon, naively believing in her eventual acquittal in both the courts of law and public opinion. Deemed to be a heroic stance by some, others see it as unrealistic given the tendency of public narratives to twist and manipulate facts.
Supporters have argued that pre-emptive pardons could be a necessary counter-measure. However, such measures could potentially catalyze the largest miscarriage of justice in the annals of American history. They argue that pre-emptive pardons ensure the integrity of the justice system. Yet, what about the consumers of justice – the ‘innocent until proved guilty’ citizenry?
There are constitutional concerns to deal with as well. Are broad, pre-emptive pardons not pushing the boundaries of the constitution? And while The Supreme Court has the final say, can we trust Biden to act apolitically when history suggests otherwise?
Precipitating a wave of pre-emptive pardons would indeed be an unprecedented move, in line with an equally unprecedented threat. Some are raising concerns about the potential moral hazards, that acting thoughtlessly with the pardon power risks setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
Political proselytizers suggest that Biden’s actions risk damaging his legacy. But with faulty steps like the pardon issue, any claims of achieving ‘normalcy’ in government, dealing with climate disruption, or restoring America’s global standing become highly questionable. Above all, the suggestion that pardons could be seen as admissions of guilt should give any supporter pause. All said, it seems to be a desperate attempt to bully and manage political opposition, defying the democratic norms and values of the United States. The time for Biden’s team to reconsider such harmful strategies should have been long ago — we can only hope they do so now.