The audacious move by President Joe Biden to pardon his own progeny, Hunter, triggered widespread consternation across the political spectrum. Many perceptive conservative pundits were quick to flag this as definitive confirmation of the notorious ‘Biden crime family’ narrative. Even moderates and liberals bristled at this harsh blow to the sanctity of the legal institution, fearing it would blaze the trail for Donald Trump to follow suit. However, these critics appear to be wrong-footed as Biden shows indications of taking the controversy further.
As disclosed by credible sources like Politico and The New York Times, plans are underway in the Biden administration to grant preemptive pardons to several individuals on Trump’s so-called ‘enemies list’ – a radical move aimed at shielding them from nuisance legal action and unfounded prosecution. Unabashedly, this sort of plan should be frowned upon in any democracy respecting the rule of law. This knee-jerk reaction hardly seems like a viable solution.
The Biden administration argues for pardons on the ground that Trump, and his cohorts, intend to misuse the power of the Department of Justice, specifically the FBI, to pursue their adversaries politically. They have not indicated any specific infractions committed by these opponents. This vagueness might because there have been no legal breaches. Indeed, Trump’s enemies in public offices have opposed, prosecuted or aggrieved him, with fears that he will soon have the means to retaliate. Such promises of retribution take America onto an uncharted terrain.
America has never witnessed a President making oblique threats of direct recompense. This is a stark deviation from the core principles that the American system upholds. This kind of behavior is commonly associated with authoritarian regimes or unstable political establishments often referred to as banana republics. Yet, these are the promises made repeatedly by the however termed president-elect. So now, the question arises, if these proclaimed enemies of Trump are innocent, do they have any cause for alarm?
They certainly have reasons to be wary, as Biden’s maneuver suggests. The accused are at risk of arrest, violation of their privacy, and staggering legal expenses. Furthermore, they may have to expend considerable time defending themselves in court, which would otherwise be utilized living their life. The case of Dr. Steven Hatfill, wrongfully accused in the 2001 anthrax envelope case, serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of baseless prosecution. Despite his total innocence, the FBI obliterated his life, invading his privacy and, forcing him to seek refuge.
With the severity of such consequences in mind, it is fair to question if the individuals on Trump’s ‘enemies list’ could be subjected to these brutal accusations. Considering Trump’s persistent threats during his campaign and his history of resorting to lawsuits as a private citizen, it seems unlikely for him not to follow through his warnings.
As for the members of the list, Trump has named public figures, law enforcement officials, and several journalists in his speeches. Among them is Sarah Isgur, a former DOJ official, who boldly asserts that she does not require a pardon as she trusts her innocence will be upheld both in the court of law and public opinion. This situation raises concerns of perhaps the largest judicial misstep in American history.
Pardoning those harassed by Trump seems like a desperate attempt to counteract threats unprecedented in their nature, executed supposedly to defend not only Trump’s targets but also the rectitude of the justice system. There are, of course, credible concerns about the legality and constitutionality of such broad, preemptive pardoning, but that is a judgement reserved for the Supreme Court.
Biden’s staunch supporters would argue that this wave of preemptive pardons, despite being unprecedented, is justified by the extraordinary nature of the threats faced. Additionally, some observers suggest that such pardoning might inadvertently affirm conspiracy theories about the ‘deep state.’ The assumption underlying such suggestions, though, presupposes that Trump has concern for such matters. Many believe that he does not.
A host of critics also underscored that Biden was potentially tarnishing his legacy through these actions. Ideally, his legacy would be one of normalizing American government for a time, launching robust efforts to combat global climate disruption, and reviving global respect for America. However, even these bright spots do not compensate for the damage his pardon controversy could do.
Another concern raised by the critics is that these pardons could be misconstrued as admissions of guilt. Despite the validation provided by certain media and political circles, it is futile to allow the fear of such misinterpretation to guide their actions; politics simply do not operate on such principles.
In sum, the objections to Biden’s use of the pardon power suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Sabotaging Trump’s vengeful plans is being portrayed as a protection of the rule of law, rather than an undermining of it. It is asserted that it safeguards innocent individuals, but the opposite could be true. The call for immediate action echoes loudly, hinting at the urgency of the situation.