President Biden's issuing of last-minute "pre-emptive pardons" to several politicians and bureaucrats is both legal, and a stunning abuse of presidential power.
They're legal because our President does, indeed, have the power to pardon offenses against Federal law - even if those pardons have never been charged with or convicted of such offenses. The presumption is that they have, indeed, done so; otherwise there'd be nothing to pardon, would there?
They're also a stunning abuse of presidential power in that those pardoned today, according to all we know of what they did while in their respective offices, did indeed abuse the power(s) of those offices to wage a political vendetta against the man who will succeed President Biden in office later today. In other words, it's now a matter of fact, if not law, that a President can use "the system" to persecute, oppress and attack his opponents, then ensure that they get away with it and can never be held accountable for what they did.
The only useful thing about these pardons is that they prevent those pardoned from invoking their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination. They can no longer be tried for any offenses they may have committed, but they can be subpoenaed to give evidence to any inquiry into what those offenses might have been. Furthermore, if they refuse to give evidence, or lie under oath, they remain liable to a conviction for contempt of court and/or perjury. They no longer have the right to keep silent about the actions that were pardoned. One hopes, at a minimum, that their mendacity, corruption and misuse of their office(s) will be thus exposed.
When the full tale of the Biden Presidency is finally unveiled, I suspect it might turn out to have been the most crooked, corrupt and criminal Presidency in our nation's history. Sadly, it now looks as if some of those most responsible for that will get away with their crimes, as far as the law is concerned. One hopes that since our judicial system is now prevented from holding them accountable, they will face justice in some other suitably condign way.
Peter
13 comments:
As his cognitive decline has been obvious for the last several years, the questions arise if he is mentally fit to issue these, or is the issue being done by one of his handlers? If the latter is proven, then the pardons have no standing. Yes, this may not be a realistic view, but one can hope.
You've given me hope that some kind of light can be shone on the dismal swamp that was the Biden presidency. However, I fear the soon to start calls for 'ca ca ca can;t we all just get along?' otherwise known as 'Reconcilliation'. After all, we don't want to be thought as 'meanies'.
Anyone know if Jill is on the pardon list? And, if she is, for what, specifically?
No, these are not legal pardons since Biden himself stated that there were no offenses committed to need a pardon. If it were brought to the USSC, I believe they would nullify them.
The left goes on and on about Trump seeking "retribution" against his political opponents and never about his actual policy of whether criminals should be investigated and pay for their crimes. That is why we can't agree to disagree in this country. Their crimes are political disagreements and our political disagreements are crimes.
Biden is such a failure that a pardon from him implies kindred guilt, and the lack of formal indictments means there's nothing concrete to defend against. These pardons cannot be welcomed by people who probably would never have faced formal charges. The cheneys and faucis of this world are overcome with a sense of their own wonderfulness and virtue and an unsolicited presidential pardon will stain their legacies. Hauling them into court would just create martyrs. Embarrassing them into shutting up and hiding away is better.
Why didn't joe pardon his brother, who has been mentioned as potentially culpable in possibly criminal wrongdoing?he may have turned one down.
rick m
Actually, these pardons can be quite useful. Look at it this way. You got your pardon. Now start talking or we charge you as an accessory after the fact.
He stated that those he pardoned "do not deserve to be targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions.
”I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing.
"Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families.”
Honest. He actually said that with a straight face!
I think Grog is correct and there's a case to be made that the pardon's are invalid because the person who issued them was not competent at the time. Same as a will or legal document signed by someone with dementia.
Unfortunately, according to what I can find Oldvet1950 is incorrect...there is precedent for the issuance and upholding of pre-emptive pardons. Ford pardoned Nixon before he'd been charged with any offense.
But the contention that a pardon indicates guilt has merit and, therefore, all recipients of such pardons (if they're not vacated due to the obvious incapacity of the person who issued them) immediately have their security clearances revoked, be barred from any government role or employment and (if possible) have any government pension or retirement benefits revoked.
"hey can be subpoenaed to give evidence to any inquiry into what those offenses might have been. Furthermore, if they refuse to give evidence, or lie under oath, they remain liable to a conviction for contempt of court and/or perjury. "
Unfortunately, they're all politicians and are well versed in the liberating power of "I can't recall". It's very tough to prosecute someone for having a horrible memory.
Thanks for the use of "condign". I learned a novel word today! Not bad for a 60-something year old!
Pardons? ADMISSIONS!
Did you see him say those words constructed in those sentences?
Or, did you read of him saying that?
In either case, his past performance, including most recent, strongly suggest that he did not, could not, coherently string together that many syllables.
Jopedo has long done battle with the English language. He routinely loses.
Count me as incredulous of his possession of the ability to make such utterances.
Grog, ROGER THAT!
Post a Comment