In his final hours as President of the United States, Joe Biden distributed presidential pardons with the generosity of candy on Halloween. The outgoing commander-in-chief deemed it appropriate to preemptively pardon a range of individuals who had not yet been charged with any crimes by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Among the illustrious names on this list were Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, Liz Cheney, and the entire January 6th Select Committee. This unprecedented move has sparked a critical question: what did these individuals do to necessitate such preemptive pardons?
The issuance of these pardons has ignited a wave of speculation and concern. The key issue being raised is whether these pardons imply wrongdoing that has yet to be revealed. If these individuals had done nothing wrong, why would they need pardons? This action has stirred sentiments suggesting that there might indeed be a hidden "there" to investigate. The public's curiosity and the demand for transparency have reached new heights, prompting a collective call for further inquiry into the matter.
In case you are wondering what is a Presidential Pardon?
A presidential pardon is an act of clemency granted by the President of the United States. It serves to forgive an individual for federal crimes, effectively erasing the legal consequences of the offense. The Constitution grants the president the authority to issue pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. This power is broad, allowing the president to pardon individuals after they have been convicted, during their trials. or even for charges formally brought against them. The pardon restores the individual's civil rights, such as the right to vote, and eliminates the stigma of a criminal conviction However, it does not imply innocence but rather acts as a legal forgiveness for the crime.
The legal community is raising significant concerns about President Biden's use of this power in a preemptive manner. Experts argue that these preemptive pardons could be challenged in court, as there is little to no precedent for pardoning individuals before they are charged with any crimes. Traditionally, presidential pardons have been applied after convictions or at least after formal charges. The unconventional nature of this move raises questions about the appropriate scope and use of presidential pardon power. Legal scholars are debating whether this application aligns with constitutional provisions or if it oversteps the boundaries of executive authority. Notably New York US Senator Chuck Schumer in 2021 called a preemptive pardon a “gross abuse of the presidential authority”.
Adding fuel to the fire is the reaction from the public, especially on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter).
Many users have expressed outrage, particularly focusing on Dr. Fauci. Critics argue that the pardon for Fauci is a tacit admission of guilt regarding his management and transparency during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fauci, who became a polarizing figure during the pandemic, faced criticism from some quarters for his evolving guidance and the handling of information related to the virus's origins and public health measures. For these critics, the pardon seems to validate their suspicions of wrongdoing.
The timing and selection of individuals for these pardons have further compounded public dissatisfaction. General Mark Milley and Liz Cheney, both of whom have been controversial figures in recent years, add to the intrigue. Milley faced criticism for his actions during the final days of the Trump administration, while Cheney became a lightning rod for her outspoken stance against former President Donald Trump and her role in the January 6th investigation. Their inclusion on the pardon list has only deepened the mystery and fueled conspiracy theories about potential political motivations behind these pardons.
As the nation grapples with this development, the broader implications of such preemptive pardons remain uncertain. If challenged, the courts will have to decide whether these pardons stand the test of legal scrutiny or if they set a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Meanwhile, the public continues to demand accountability and transparency, questioning the true motives behind this sweeping exercise of presidential clemency.
In conclusion, President Biden's final act of issuing preemptive pardons has opened a Pandora’s box of legal, ethical, and political debates. Whether these actions were justified or an overreach of executive power, only time and further investigations will reveal. However, the immediate aftermath has been one of widespread confusion, suspicion, and a heightened call for transparency from both the outgoing and incoming administrations.