Why not? That’s what they’re going to do with presidential immunity. Republicans are immune, Democrats aren’t. They are completely shameless, and it’s naive to expect otherwise.
If a pardon requires the person receiving it to admit to the crime for the pardon to be in effect, that would be a great way to “throw shade” at Trump on Biden’s way out of the White House. Make a long list of his crimes–even those for which has hasn’t been charged yet–and issue a pre-emptive pardon.
There are slight variations in published lists of Donald Trump’s enemies, but this from Politico looks about correct:
I’m thinking that President Biden should give a blanket non-specific pardon to everyone on the list except himself. The reason for not pardoning himself is that the evident selflessness would make what Trumpworld is planning look, to those in the middle, even worse.
However, I am not sure of my opinion here. How would issuing more preemptive pardons impact the confirmation chances of Trump’s most extreme appointees?
Unlike Hunter Biden, most of these people haven’t been charged with anything, so no, a pardon wouldn’t be necessary. In fact giving them a blanket pardon might be seen as an admission that they did do something for which they could be prosecuted.
I think he should.
The vast majority of them are decent people, who were legitimately trying their best to do the right things for the US, and ended up on the shit list largely because of Republican lies, conspiracies, and conspiracy theories. None of them deserve any of what Trump is going to do to them, even if it doesn’t reach the lowest low points we’re currently imagining as possibilities. Even just being the target of an investigation will ruin a lot of lives.
Screw that, and screw Trump. Biden should pardon everyone he can think of.
Once again, the Republicans won’t need that. They’re quite happy to spin out a web of lies, without regard to any actual facts on the ground. They’re not seeking to punish people for actual crimes, they want to punish people for opposing their political ambitions. Facts don’t matter at all.
The pardon could list everything that is alleged against them in right-wing media, and specifically say that they did not do it. There is a balance between specificity and coverage, and a risk that SCOTUS will come up with an excuse to say the pardon is unconstitutional regardless. But I think that most interested voters would accept a statement, in the pardon, that it is just a protection against unfair incoming administration plans, not an admission.
This would make for a lengthy pardon statement, but I think Biden has lawyers in his administration who are good writers.
However, your concern cannot be dismissed.
The people on the enemies list would be hauled before Congress and forced to testify about the alleged crimes they did not do. Then the GOP may twist their words in an attempt to come up with new charges for behavior outside the date range in the pardon, maybe perjury.
There’s no such thing as an “unconstitutional pardon”. The presidential pardon authority is absolute. The only limitation is that it cannot expunge an impeachment.
Personally, I don’t think the pardons OP suggests are necessary, but I won’t complain if he does it.
Add in some passive-aggressive wording, like, “All Federal offences, both real and imaginary”.
That’s the thing about covering your ass. You never know if it’s really going to be needed, but if you don’t do it, you risk getting bit on the ass.
Looking very literally as worded above, that is clearly mistaken. See:
The President’s Conditional Pardon Power
There are many legal articles questioning whether a self-pardon would be upheld.
There are fewer on the question of whether a non-specific pardon, covering all federal offenses in a date range, as in the Nixon and Hunter Biden examples, would be upheld. Perhaps Trump’s Justice Department would never challenge a non-specific pardon because their supremo might want to issue one himself. A poster seemed, to me, to be saying this in another thread. But I think it is impossible to predict what SCOTUS would do if asked to rule…
From the Brookings Institution:
Yep- after Swift endorsed Harris, Politifact was awash with fake news spread about Swift. All fasle or even Pants on Fire.
Nixon wasn’t charged with anything when Ford pardoned him, either.
In which case a pardon won’t do diddly-squat. They can still be “investigated” which is how Trump chooses to harass people who he doesn’t like, when he can’t actually get them charged with anything because there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. There’s no reason why someone who is pardoned can’t be investigated for some made up reason.
A pardon is only necessary if you want to make sure that people aren’t actually prosecuted and convicted.
But it will highlight that they’re not being investigated for crimes. Any crimes that are alleged will have been covered by the pardon, and so the real motivation is simply persecution.
It’s weak, but given the results of the election, weak is the best we can get right now. No matter what happens, we’ll just have to live through it, using whatever tools we have. This is one such tool, such as it is.
This is not true. The Supreme Court has recognized limitations and requirements on the pardon – it only applies to federal crimes, it only apply to acts completely in the past (i.e. a President could not pardon an ongoing criminal act), the pardon must be accepted by the pardoned.
But the most important point is that Supreme Court precedents around the pardon power are few. The “blanket pardon” of Nixon was never tested because no subsequent Administration sought to bring charges against him. Whether a self-pardon is constitutionally permissible has never been tested. The presidential pardon authority is only “absolute” unless and until the Supreme Court finds its exercise unconstitutional in a specific way involving a real world case.
Okay, so, hypothetically let’s stipulate there’s a presidential pardon effectively immunizing Trump’s enemies from federal prosecution for anything they’ve done over the last few years (or that zealous loyalists might try to manufacture based on same). What’s to stop the authorities in Texas, or some other shithole red state led by thuggish Trumpian morons, from attempting to drum up state-level actions against them?
In response to the OP: Nope, no way, no how, and hell no. Pardoning those on Trump’s enemies list would imply those individuals did, in fact, do something illegal.
Common decency!
I’ll take an implication of illegality over a politically motivated sham trial any day. Hell, at this point, I’d be fine with Biden issuing a blanket pardon to himself and anyone who worked for the Biden, Obama, OR Clinton administrations for any crime that may have been committed in the commission of their office, along with all current and retired flag officers who’ve held rank within the last two decades, and make it clear that he’s doing it SPECIFICALLY because of Trump and his buddies threatening revenge on them.
If Republicans have a problem with that, dare them to pass an amendment to limit pardons.