Observing the questionable actions of former President Biden, a peculiar error was made during his time of departure from office. The pardoning of family members, an action undertaken by Biden in his last moments as president, stands out as a highly questionable decision. Even Democratic senator Adam Schiff asserted the wrongness of this measure. The concern arises considering the precedent it sets, allowing for potential misuse of the presidential pardon privilege in the future.
In Schiff’s own words, he assails Biden’s decision as a dangerous precedent. It weakens the moral fiber that should be inherent in the White House. The implications of this action are far-reaching, potentially emboldening any first family to engage in immoral activities. They then could anticipate a pardon as they exit the door. It’s a deplorable scenario one would not wish upon any family occupying the highest office in the land.
This decision sends a troubling message that actions without consequences can become a norm for the White House’s residents. Biden’s uncertainty over the precedent set by these pardons only adds fuel to the fire. His words and actions do not align, creating concerns of hypocrisy and double standards. One can only wonder why Biden would condone such actions against his previously voiced concerns.
Despite Schiff’s assertions, he diverged slightly from his Democratic colleague Sen. Tim Kaine’s views on the pardons. Kaine suggested that Biden’s pardons made it challenging to critique Trump’s pardons issued on January 6th. However, it seems Kaine’s stance holds a mirror up to the potential bias within the Democratic Party. Each instance of pardoning, regardless of the circumstances, needs to be evaluated on their potential impacts and precedents.
Schiff attempted to paint an image of nuance by distinguishing Biden’s pardons from pardons for violent law offenders. This perspective seems misguided, as it implicitly condones pardoning wrongdoings based on their severity. Every misuse of power is destructive and sets an unhealthy precedent. A pardon is a pardon, irrespective of who benefits from it.
This notion raises a crucial question: Is there a limit to the extent of wrongdoings that can be pardoned? Schiff’s stance appears to imply there isn’t. The exoneration of violent individuals who attack law enforcement is ironically deemed as a destructive precedent by Schiff. It’s not far-fetched to see a slippery slope here under Biden’s governance.
Making excuses for certain instances while bashing others, a prevalent trend, hardly reinforces the Democratic Party’s message of integrity. It might be harder to critique the pardon of hundreds of rioters after Biden’s controversial family pardons, but the assessment should remain objective. Irrespective of affiliations, these issues merit a robust critical review to uphold the virtues of justice and fair play.
The knife of criticism should cut both ways. If pardoning family members is wrong, then so is pardoning cop attackers. The perceived ‘littleness’ or ‘largeness’ of the act committed shouldn’t be a deciding factor in whether it gets pardoned. This principle mirrors the core value of equality before the law, which appears to be entirely disregarded.