— Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey (D)
— Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle (D)
Politico reports that Joe Biden may issue preemptive blanket pardons to his supporters in anticipation of potential legal action by President-elect Donald Trump. This move comes as Trump has indicated his intention to pursue accountability for certain individuals. The pardons could shield these individuals from past, present, and future prosecution and are seen as a safeguard against possible retaliation by the current administration.
Who might these include?
- Liz Cheney
- Mark Milley
- James Clapper
- John Brennan
- Christopher Wray
- Alvin Bragg
- Alejandro Mayorkas
- Kamala Harris
…and Joe Biden himself.
RELATED: Here’s the Discussion Reportedly Going on About More Biden Pardons – and the Big Names Being Mentioned
Advocates of this strategy argue that it is essential to safeguard Biden’s allies from any unjust repercussions in the aftermath of Trump’s presidency. By granting such pardons, Biden could provide a layer of protection for those who fear legal consequences or harassment due to their association with him.
As Tucker Carlson has said so many times in the past, “If they are blaming you for something, it means they are doing it themselves.”
As the transition of power unfolds, there is a sense of urgency among liberals to shield themselves from potential legal scrutiny. Pursuing Trump through legal avenues was seen by many as a politically motivated tactic, and now, with the tables turned, there is a scramble for protection from what may come to light. The abrupt shift in power dynamics has prompted a defensive posture among progressives, reminiscent of roaches seeking cover when exposed to sudden light.
The very idea that a blanket preemptive pardon would be handed out is an anathema to the very idea of justice because it would occur before any charges were made. And it would prevent any charges from ever being leveled. As such, the idea of preemptive clemency simply gives one carte blanche to act in any manner he/she sees fit while in office, provided they have the expectation of pardon.
I don’t see how this leads to anything but a pathway to the abuse of political power. Take Alejandro Mayorkas, for example. He’s repeatedly assured Congress that the border is secure. The border is not secure. There’s simply no question here, but in redefining the word “secure” to mean that people may flood into the country under the pretense of political persecution, get airline and bus tickets at our expense, and be released into the interior with a court date years into the future (which I doubt they will keep because no one will know where they are to hold them accountable), Mayorkas says there is a legal process for it all, and so the border is secure.
This man arguably could be prosecuted for violating Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution, which says the federal government is bound to protect the states from invasion. Now, some will say this is not an invasion, but that is what a trial would settle. If you cannot ever have a trial, then a guy like Mayorkas can treat the entire country like his own little fiefdom and forever change the United States culturally, socially, and legally. All on his own. And with a blanket and preemptive pardon, presidential cabinet members, NGOs, and partisan bureaucrats have the freedom to make policy that we didn’t vote for and probably never would.
What the progressives could gain, if Markey were to get his Christmas wish, is a short-term insurance policy against prosecution for guys like Mayorkas, or John Brennan, or Mark Milley, but it will set a precedent for long-term abuse by presidents in the future. Trump could employ the same tactics, and while the progs would scream and shout, there wouldn’t be much they could do about it legally, not to mention the fact that they were the ones who started rolling that snowball down the hill in the first place.
Now, for Trump, if he were to find himself in the position where he could not prosecute certain individuals for treason or malfeasance, perhaps he could at least have them investigated. The products of such interrogatories might not lead to any charges because of the pardons, but at least such “fact-finding endeavors” might illuminate what abuses (if any) actually occurred so that we could avoid more in the future. This information would be made public to the electorate, and from that, what happens happens.
Tearing down institutions and traditions tears apart a society, a country. Sure, things can evolve over time, but to rip stuff out by the roots all at once is very reckless. Issuing preemptive pardons before any charges are even leveled prevents justice because we never have an opportunity to find out if it was ever being served in the first place. Did Mayorkas break the border all of his own volition just because he felt like it? Was he instructed to do it? If so, by whom? Who does he report to? Oh…the president.
Shouldn’t those questions be posed and answered in a formal setting that compels him to answer truthfully? I think so.
