Below is my column in the New York Post on the news reports that President Joe Biden is seriously considering preemptive pardons for political allies. In granting what I have called “White Knight pardons,” Biden would achieve more of a political than legal purpose. Democrats are worried about the collapsing narrative that President-elect Donald Trump will destroy democracy, end future elections, and conduct sweeping arrests of everyone from journalists to homosexuals. That narrative, of course, ignores that we have a constitutional system of overlapping protections that has blocked such abuses for over two centuries. Ironically, preemptive pardons would do precisely what Biden suggests that he is deterring: create a dangerous immunity for presidents and their allies in committing criminal abuses.
Here is the column:
There are growing indications that President Joe Biden is about to fundamentally change the use of presidential pardons by granting “prospective” or “preemptive” pardons to political allies. Despite repeated denials of President-elect Donald Trump that he is seeking retaliation against opponents and his statements that he wants “success [to be] my revenge,” Democratic politicians and pundits have called for up to thousands of such pardons.
While there is little threat of any viable prosecution of figures like the members of the January 6th Committee, the use of “White Knight pardons” offers obvious political benefits. After many liberals predicted the imminent collapse of democracy and that opponents would be rounded up in mass by the Trump Administration, they are now contemplating the nightmare that democracy might survive and that there will be no mass arrests.
The next best thing to a convenient collapse of democracy is a claim that Biden’s series of preemptive pardons averted it. It is enough to preserve the narrative in the face of a stable constitutional system . Indeed, Biden’s pardon list has replaced the usual Inauguration Ball lists as the “must-have” item this year. Pardon envy is sweeping over the Beltway as politicians and pundits push to be included on the list of presumptive Trump enemies.
The political stunt will come at a cost. Preemptive pardons could become the norm as presidents pardon whole categories of allies and even themselves to foreclose federal prosecutions. It can quickly become the norm in what I recently wrote about as our “age of rage.”
It will give presidents cover to wipe away any threat of prosecution for friends, donors, and associates. This can include self-pardons issued as implied condemnations of their political opponents. It could easily become the final act of every president to pardon himself and all of the members of his Administration. We would then have an effective immunity rule for outgoing parties in American politics.
Ironically, there is even less need for such preemptive pardons after the Supreme Court recognized that presidents are immune for many decisions made during their presidencies. Likewise, members have robust constitutional protections for their work under Article I, as do journalists and pundits under the Constitution’s First Amendment.
We have gone over two centuries without such blanket immunity. In my book The Indispensable Right, I discuss our periods of violent political strife and widespread arrests. Thomas Jefferson referred to John Adams’s Federalist government as “the reign of the witches.” Yet, even presidents in those poisonous times did not do what Joe Biden is now contemplating.
Moreover, presidential pardons have a checkered history, including presidents pardoning family members or political donors. Bill Clinton did both. Not surprisingly, Clinton last week attempted to add his own wife’s name to the sought-after Biden pardon list. He added, however, “I don’t think I should be giving public advice on the pardon power…It’s a very personal thing.”
That is precisely the point. The power was not created to be used for “very personal things,” like pardoning your half-brother and a fugitive Democratic donor on your last day in office.
Yet, despite that history, no president has seen fit to go as far as where Biden appears to be heading.
We have a constitutional system that allows for overlapping protections of individuals from abusive prosecutions and convictions. It does not always work as fast as we would want, but it has sustained the oldest and most stable constitutional system in history.
These figures would prefer to fundamentally change the use of the pardon power to maintain an apocalyptic narrative that was clearly rejected by the public in this election. If you cannot prove the existence of the widely touted Trump enemies list, a Biden pardon list is the next best thing.
After years of lying to the American people about the influence-peddling scandal and promising not to consider a pardon for his son, Biden would end his legacy with the ultimate dishonesty: converting pardons into virtual party favors.
In doing so, he has ironically lowered the standard and expectations for his successors. Joe Biden has become the president that Richard Nixon only imagined. He would establish with utter clarity that this power is not presidential, but personal and political . . . and many in the Beltway are waiting to give him a standing ovation.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
“. . . Democratic politicians and pundits have called for up to thousands of such pardons.” (JT)
Just like the D’s attitude toward all values. Values are not earned. They’re given to you, at someone else’s expense, based on your “need.”
Need a trophy? No problem, here’s a “participation” one.
Need your student loans wiped out? Got you covered, at the expense of those who earn their money.
Need a seat in a college classroom? Here’s one, assuming you are in the “needy” group.
Need a job, fame, a government grant? We use DEI for that.
Oh, you need a pardon? Here you go, then ten more for your needy friends.
D’s devalue everything.
The dems seem to be operating under the delusion that after the past four years we will let them anywhere in proximity to power again. Their behavior on the way out the door is inexplicably even more egregious than their time in office. They have shown there is no low to which they won’t stoop and no law they won’t ignore – these people are insane.
After what has easily been the most corrupt administration and Congress our country has ever seen, it’d be hilarious were it not so serious. Truly, all they are doing is pouring gasoline on the fire already engulfing this lost cause of a party. Their madness WILL be their undoing; there will be no regaining of trust.
They are probably betting on the collapse of the Everything Financial Bubble to destroy the Trump Republicans and restore them to power.
Whatever happened to the Democratic party mantra while using lawfare against Trump etal ” No one is above the Rule of Law.”, not even the President !
Next we will have an “Innaugeral Ball” …formal wear only ; and simultaneously across the street a “Pardon Ball “!…orange jump suits/ black n white striped gowns only.
Can this be stopped by Congress or the SCOTUS?
“ Can this be stopped by Congress or the SCOTUS?”
No.
According to one exit pollster, only 31% of voters identified as Democrat in the last election. It’s a party popular with the elites and academic cranks, but it’s now a rump third party with everyone else.
Pardoning a bunch of Democrat crooks on his way out the door does not seem like a winning strategy to rebuild trust with average voters. I imagine Democrat party ID will fall even lower and put them “in the wilderness” for longer than a couple of elections cycles.
The time has come for Congress to pass “Constitional legislation”, interpreting the meaning of the pardon power. That is within the power of Congress and is likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court if it passed with bi-partisan support.
Congress cannot issue “constitutional legislation” to reinterpret the Constitution. While they have the authority to propose constitutional amendments, they cannot enact legislation claiming to define the Constitution’s pardon powers. That responsibility falls exclusively to the Supreme Court, which can only interpret the Constitution as it is written.
The power to interpret law resides firmly within the judicial branch. Congress may create laws, but it cannot alter the Constitution’s meanings through legislation. Any attempt to redefine the Constitution must involve passing a constitutional amendment and obtaining ratification from the states.
“Marbury firmly established that the judicial branch has a role in interpreting the Constitution, including the power to strike down laws held to be incompatible with the founding document. It did not, however, expressly state that the judiciary has a final or even exclusive role in defining the basic powers and limits of the federal government. To the contrary, the early history of the United States is replete with examples of all three branches of the federal government playing a role in constitutional interpretation. Both Congress and the Executive openly questioned the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on constitutional law, such as the Court’s rulings on the National Bank or slavery. Thomas Jefferson believed that “each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution, without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question.” Indeed, Congress spent “a considerable amount of time” “debating the constitutional limitations on” legislation during the first 100 years of the nation.
In the mid-twentieth century, however, the Supreme Court began articulating a theory of judicial supremacy wherein the Court no longer shared its role in interpreting the Constitution with the other branches of the federal government and instead characterized itself as the preeminent arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning. For example, in Cooper v. Aaron, the Court read Marbury as “declaring the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and [this] principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.” This view implies that constitutional interpretations by other actors, including Congress, lack the same force as the judiciary’s interpretations.
. . .
The theory of judicial supremacy is far from a consensus view, and several aspects of the American constitutional system may counsel for a more robust role for Congress in constitutional interpretation. In recent decades, a number of legal scholars and government officials have criticized the judicial supremacy view. This view suggests that Congress and others outside of the government possess independent and coordinate authority to interpret the Constitution.” [footnotes omitted]
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44729
That is all useless babble. City of Boerne is the law of the land, and it says the exact opposite.
No, that is NOT within the power of Congress. Congress can only make law, it cannot interpret law. It can’t even interpret the laws it made itself! Let alone the constitution. Any bill Congress passes that purports to interpret the constitution is automatically void and worthless, and it is every court’s DUTY to ignore it.
City of Boerne.
The Presidential pardon runs counter to the rule-of-law as applied by juries. It opens the door to elitist corruption.
I don’t see giving any individual that degree of arbitrary power.
The Constitution gives the President a lot of leeway to issue pardons for just about any reason. Since that power is part of the highest law, it’s not really against the rules. That’s why it stirs up so much debate whenever a president decides to pardon someone or reduce a sentence, and honestly, there’s not much anyone can do about it. The most people can do is vent and complain.
Great column. Projective thinking allows the pardon process could be a part of advanced lawfare. For example, suppose Person A suddenly finds himself under investigation by the administration of President B for some crimes. Not good. At the same time Person A is encouraged by the incumbent’s team to contribute to the campaign for an agreed upon pardon if President B loses, and a dismissal of any charges upon winning. All ok. BUT with no contribution, prosecution Person A continues. This is unprovable extortion.
This is something like throwing steak to the attack dog.
Well the heavy breathers got their nonsense out on the blog right off the bat. They have preached their propaganda so long that now they believe it.
1 -the president got immunity for official acts. 2- he can still be impeached on impeachment articles from the House and a 2/3 vote by the Senate for conviction even if they have a only severe disagreement over his policy and official acts. I did not see anything in the SCOTUS decision that stopped or hinders impeachment. The House and Senate have these same immunities.
What this could provoke is a constitutional amendment, if his pardons are two gregarious and the people go against him. Constitutional amendments don’t have to go through the House and Senate. There is another way.
I do note that there are many democrats who have criticized the pardons and especially the pardon of Hunter, the miscreant son. Joe Biden, besides his many other faults, has a tendency to not know where to stop. If he goes overboard with pardons he may instead place a target on some of the pardoned people and then the public make take direct action if their sense of justice is rightly thought to destroyed. That is a fine line and I am not sure Mr Biden recognizes any limiting lines. It does not take only radicalized progressives to sneak up behind someone and put several bullets in their back.
I disagree about Mr Biden not being evil. He is not the victim here. Anyone who has watched him for 30 years has seen the ugly side of his personality and things like dementia don’t usually make you nice but they do aggravate and worsen the unsavory traits.
I felt no sympathy for him when the Dems ditched him. He was just their useful idiot until his dementia made him unelectable. Anybody with any sense knows that good ole Joe was just a cats paw for Obama. Obama does not recognize any lines either, he is just more subtle about when he crosses them.
“ Constitutional amendments don’t have to go through the House and Senate. There is another way.”
And that is?
Constitutional amendments do have to go through the House and Senate, then the states. Two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate is required to pass an amendment. Three-fourths of state legislatures must ratify the amendment, or three-fourths of conventions called in each state must ratify it.
I believe GEB is referring to an article V convention as another way for constitutional amendments to be proposed and ratified. I think it’s less likely than getting the requisite majorities in both chambers of congress to pass on to the states.
Not true. If ⅔ of state legislatures agree, they can call for a “constitutional convention” to propose amendments to the Constitution. The amendments then have to be ratified by ¾ of the states. This process completely bypasses the Federal legislature.
This process completely bypasses the Federal legislature.
No, it doesn’t. Read Article 5. Congress remains very much involved.
Ignorance.
It is this kind of abuse that is the reason some states limit the pardon power of their governors, or disallow it completely, and that enables other abuses (like Fani Willis). It also is the reason most states have a split executive.
If Biden does what Professor Turley fears he may do why wouldn’t Trump just issue pardons for his entire cabinet on January 21st? Why not pardon everyone he knows, everyone he is related to, everyone involved in J6, everyone of his family members and then them all go wild?
The left will defend anything that a Democrat does even when they know (or should know) that it will come back to bite them. I call this the Harry Reid Checkers vs Chess Players syndrome.
why wouldn’t Trump just issue pardons for his entire cabinet on January 21st? Why not pardon everyone he knows, everyone he is related to, everyone involved in J6, everyone of his family members and then them all go wild?
He could pardon them all, for all past crimes, but he can’t pardon future crimes.
Well, he cannot pardon all of the facts and evidence that would prove to the American people that the modern Democratic party should be kept as far away from political power as possible.
DOGE would be a very good entity to lay it all out by July 4th 2026 and in time for the midterms.
Pardon: “To release (a person) from punishment or disfavor for wrongdoing”.
Will the crimes of those being pardoned be published, I mean if you need a presidential pardon what crime exactly have you committed? If you’re a politician and seeking a presidential pardon for wrongdoing how can you hold office? Maybe the pineapple’s who’ve been voting and supporting these criminals for these many years will stop once we identify the true criminals?
The crimes don’t have to be known. Just as blanket pardons, pardoning all people who have committed a specific crime, are valid even though the people’s names are not known.
Biden could issue a pardon for every illegal immigrant for the crimes they are accused of, essentially absolving them of offenses that could lead to their deportation. The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a president from granting mass pardons. If Trump can do this for those involved in the January 6 events, Biden could certainly do the same for illegal immigrants, effectively granting them asylum on a large scale. While this would not make them citizens, it would provide immunity from prosecution or result in commuted sentences. I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but according to legal theory it is entirely possible.
Additionally, Trump will try to end birthright citizenship through an executive order based on a legal theory suggesting that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. However, this raises another issue. If some courts accept this legal interpretation, it could mean that illegal immigrants cannot be prosecuted under the law because they would not be considered subject to the Constitution. They might then argue for immunity from prosecution on the grounds that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution and the laws derived by it. At times, it seems that Republicans create more difficulties in an effort to justify their problematic interpretations and satisfy their aggressive viewpoints.
Illegal immigrants might have the status of invaders until the moment they are caught the first time, and then they certainly are under US jurisdiction. But most birth tourism is not done by people who walk across the border or swim the rio to drop a baby. It is from Chinese “tourists”.
The issue with the interpretation that the incoming Trump administration is considering to justify ending birthright citizenship is based on the belief that immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. However, if that is the argument they intend to make, then individuals accused of being in the country illegally could also claim they are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. In that case, they could argue that they cannot be prosecuted under the laws and powers established by the Constitution because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. It seems far-fetched, but it’s as improbable as claiming they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution because they are not citizens.
The rights and powers granted by the Constitution apply to all individuals residing within this nation’s borders and territories.
“The rights and powers granted by the Constitution apply to all individuals residing within this nation’s borders and territories.”
Tell that to Elian Gonzalez.
Elian Gonzalez was a minor, and his rights were therefore exercised by his only living parent, just like any other minor.
“. . . his rights were therefore exercised by his only living parent . . .”
Constitutional rights do not apply to Cuban citizens, which is what his father was. And there’s no such thing as the “right” to deliver a child to a slave pen, which is what Cuba was (and is).
George, are you misunderstanding “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?”
That means no due process, no immigration hearing, no “report to the U.S. immigration office within XXX days.’
Instead, we just pick ’em up by their bootstraps and throw them back over the border line. If they come back again, after having been warned and returned, they become “alien enemies” attempting to occupy our territory.
On the contrary, if someone is not subject to US jurisdiction then we can’t touch him. We can’t arrest him, even if we see him shooting someone. He can’t be sued in a US court, even if he blatantly rips someone off. He can’t be compelled to testify in a US court, even if he is the only witness to a mass murder. That’s what “not subject to the jurisdiction” means.
There are basically three categories of such people: Diplomats, “Indians not taxes” (which no longer exist), and invading armies. That’s why prisoners of war can’t be charged with a crime for killing people and all the other things they do that would normally be crimes.
Trump will try to end birthright citizenship through an executive order based on a legal theory suggesting that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
George is here to provide comic relief along with his dull attempts at logic.
LMAO after remembering George’s weekly posts where he plays the Rebel Confederate Constitutional Expert where he condemns Lincoln for not “deporting” all freed black slaves born in America.
While George explained why black Americans and the children of naturalized immigrants are not citizens qualified to run for president.
George sure loved the Confederate legal theory on birthright citizenship when it suited his Kluxxer legal theory that said it was unconstitutional.
George, who’s willing enough to get close enough to you to tie your shoes for you in the morning?
Old Airborne Dog
Old Dog, you must be confusing me with “old George” who posted a lot about birthright citizenship and other long winded claims.
Old Dog, you must be confusing me with “old George” who posted a lot about birthright citizenship and other long winded claims.
No, Confederate Kluxxer George, you’re the one bugling every week that Lincoln should of “deported” the black American slaves born here in America after they were freed, based on the writings of some elitist European from before the time of the Revolutionary War.
The other George is lucid and rational. You on the other hand could present better posts by spilling a bowl of alphabet soup on a table.
Old Airborne Dog
“It will give presidents cover to wipe away any threat of prosecution for friends, donors, and associates.”
Any of these names ring a bell? Steve Bannon (who kept criming and eventually went to jail), Charles Kushner (soon to be Ambassador to France), Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Albert Pirro. What a selective memory Turley has. Trump and Guiliani were literally selling pardons from the Trump White House and the traditional review process was thrown out the window.
Those pardons were all for identified crimes. What Biden is proposing appears to be pardons for any and all crimes, without specificity, as he did for Hunter. That is very different.
Unfortunately, the Constitution does not impose restrictions on the issuance of pardons, except in cases of impeachment and state offenses. Given that the Supreme Court has essentially provided the president with extensive immunity for official actions, any pardons, which are constitutional official acts, would not be eligible for judicial review or challenge by Congress. Pardons represent a unique authority that is granted to the president and were intended to be exercised solely at the president’s discretion. The only process to establish clearer boundaries on that power is to introduce an amendment to the Constitution.
The President can still be impeached and removed for outrageous pardons, but that matters little when he is already headed out the door.
“ Trump and Guiliani were literally selling pardons from the Trump White House and the traditional review process was thrown out the window.”
Exactly. And Turley remained silent.
Man, you sure have a warpped imagination. Delusional in fact.
Trump granted 237 acts of clemency during his four years in the White House, including 143 pardons and 94 commutations. Only two other presidents since 1900 – George W. and George H.W. Bush – granted fewer acts of clemency than Trump.
His predecessor, Barack Obama, granted clemency 1,927 times over the course of eight years in office, the highest total of any president going back to Harry Truman. Obama’s total was skewed heavily toward commutations (1,715) instead of pardons (212).President Biden Announces Clemency for Nearly 1,500 Americans
Home
Briefing Room
Statements and Releases
Today’s announcement will commute the sentences of close to 1,500 individuals who were placed on home confinement and will pardon 39 individuals convicted of non-violent crimes
Today, President Biden announced that he is granting clemency to nearly 1,500 Americans – the most ever in a single day – who have shown successful rehabilitation and
1500 in one day, who is selling what? Grab both your ears George, and yank. Your #TDS is incurable.
Rixhel, you just proved that a president can issue mass pardons or commutations and showed that there is no limit to how many he can issue in a single day.
Johnson pardoned all confederates and Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers.
And Washington pardoned all the Whiskey rebels.
“Rixhel, you just proved that a president can issue mass pardons”
George, that’s a hell of a way to not say “Okay, with that post you’re the first one here today to prove I’m a serial pathological liar”.
Anonymous, your ability to analogize is about as good as your ability to be honest. How many of the people you listed WENT TO PRISON? How many of the pardons Trump gave were for prospective crimes and not crimes already adjudicated? How many of the above were actual political prosecutions?
Keep defending Joe Biden and keep watching your supposed credibility disappear. Joe Biden is a crook and you are defending him still. DUMB!
“Any of these names ring a bell?”
Oh yeah… and my memory isn’t as selective as yours. Want to have a discussion rather than just running and hiding?
Steve Bannon is on your list – any particular reason why the names ‘Eric Holder’, ‘Hillary Clinton’, ‘Hunter Biden’ aren’t on your list of names of those prosecuted for violating subpoenas? There was a Democrat Attorney General in office when they ignored subpoenas, just as there was when Steve Bannon was prosecuted.
Why the difference?
George Papadopoulos prosecuted by Special Counsel Mueller for lying to his FBI. Any particular reason that Special Counsel Mueller, Obama’s last two Attorney Generals, and Mueller’s FBI agents who perjured themselves to FISA courts to obtain spy warrants weren’t also prosecuted for lying? Lying to FISA courts and the additional crime of depriving Americans of their constitutional rights by color of law?
Why the difference.
Michael Flynn; prosecuted by FBI who perjured themselves to the courts about the transcript of that call and who altered their interview notes. Isn’t Michael Flynn the one caught in an FBI agents notes, where then VP Biden discussed how they could try taking him out with a prosecution under the Logan Act? Where the agents who later prosecuted him told Obama and Biden that he had no idea why they were there, and he had told the truth?
However, I encourage you commie ‘tards to continue believing these double standards will get you back in office. After all, it worked so well last month!
Thank you. Altered FBI 302s. Totally criminal demoncrats.
“ Despite repeated denials of President-elect Donald Trump that he is seeking retaliation against opponents and his statements that he wants “success [to be] my revenge,”
Turley should understand by now that presidents have been known to lie—even Donald Trump. While Trump claims he isn’t seeking revenge or retaliation, he has not committed to stopping his FBI or DOJ from investigating or prosecuting those he views as political enemies. As usual, it is disingenuous to say that Trump denies seeking retribution; he will not prevent his political appointees from doing the dirty work.
Nothing prevents Biden from issuing preemptive pardons since the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit such actions. Turley and other Republicans seem frustrated by the fact that Biden is exercising his constitutional power and the president’s pardon power is quite broad, with few limited exceptions. Although a president can theoretically self-pardon for any reason despite not being specifically mentioned, this does not imply that such power can not be used to preemptively pardon someone facing potential prosecution, especially after threats of vindictive retaliation have already been made clear.
Trump has asserted presidential immunity from charges related to the hush-money convictions, claiming he is the president-elect. The issue here is that he is not currently the president. There can only be one president at a time, and it is definitely not Trump. Until he is sworn in, he is not protected by presidential immunity. The law is clear on this point: Trump has no immunity until he is officially sworn in. Perhaps Turley should focus his legal analysis on this issue instead of complaining about Biden’s pardon powers, which Trump will undoubtedly abuse once he is sworn in and there is nothing anyone can do about it just like it is with Biden.
During his presidency, Trump used pardons to encourage his followers to break the law, allowing him to avoid personal consequences. If Turley is genuinely worried about the abuse of pardon power, he should have preached this concern when Trump and his allies were promoting pardons to foster lawlessness in an attempt to unlawfully maintain power in 2020. In fact, Trump could have used his pardon power—an official act—to encourage criminal actions while enjoying full immunity from prosecution.
Biden and whoever is really directing things will Pardon a large number of Democrats, Gov’t employees, Cabinet members, people like Chris Wray, Donors, Family members, Clintons, Cheney, Miley Prosecutors such as Fani/Alvin etc. 2000,3000 plus. Plus his wife, all his family and he will pardon himself – Mass Pardon. He is the worst President ever, with the most Radical Leftist Group of staff etc. Trump needs to clean house and etc.
He will do a mass pardon like that to hide the needles who really need pardons in a massive haystack who don’t.
Biden is an evil man. Let me repeat that: Biden is an evil man. His greatest supporters no longer try to polish his image but are simply trying to survive his presidency. Trump has emerged as the good guy in all this. But the snake has one last poisonous bite to make before passing on and that will be Biden’s swan song. He will pardon all illegal aliens, making it difficult if not impossible for Trump to deport them. The many years of a life poorly spent have caught up with Biden and as he begins to leave this world for the next one he is doing whatever he can to leave a legacy of retribution and hate. It’s too late to make amends even if he were of a mind to do so. He knows what’s waiting for him and it isn’t pleasant.
Evil? Puleese, he’s senile. All actions being atributted to Biden are done by his so called staff. Agin, he’s senile, not evil. Hillary is evil.
Is it not evil to have your justice dept go after political foes? Is it not evil to give speech after speech dividing the country? Is it not evil to claim GA was Jim Crow 2.0 or Jim Eagle? Was it not evil to have your son travel on AF 2 to China to make corrupt deals? Was it not evil to have the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect your kid? Was it not evil to shower with your daughter? Was it not evil to claim the guy that was in the car accident with your wife was drunk when he wasn’t?
Just because Hilary is evil doesn’t mean that Biden isn’t.
“Is it not evil to have your justice dept go after political foes?” Absolutely not, it lawfare, as practiced by the federal and state governmants since 1789.
Your definition of evil is exagerated. AS such, not getting a xmas card from a releative is evil.
Tone it down and think.
Please remind me as to when a president used his DOJ to conspire with state prosecutors to have a FORMER PRESIDENT charged with insane state crimes, insane civil lawsuits and insane legal theories.
When it is Biden and/or Hilary sitting in a TX, FL, or AL courthouse then tell yourself to “tone it down”.
Suggest you figure that yourself. I know it, why should I play that child’s game you so often do here.
Find the answer yourself. When you find the answer, no need to report it here. Consider yourself as self-informed. Smartest fool in the room!
Putting everything on a plate to prove to an adolescent is a game I stopped playing with my children decades ago.
I really don’t have the patience to play kids games with you.
The scariest piece in your arrogant, moronic screeching is that you have kids.
You omitted one of the greatest atrocities of all; the abandonment of Afghanistan leaving American citizens and Afghan allies to the tender mercies of the Taliban. In the process he got 13 American servicemen killed and left behind billions $ in weapons and equipment as well as a strategically important airbase. He debased the reputation of this country in the eyes of our allies and enemies.
“Evil? Puleese, he’s senile.”
Senility is the reason he was screwing his teenage shower in the shower?
Senility is the reason he was selling his country from the Vice President’s office to the ChiComs, Putin, etc?
Senility is the reason he abandoned Americans to die in Benghazi and Afghanistan?
Give your apologist head a shake, you dopey man.
Indeed Sir… Matthew 7:13
Deportation is not prevented by a pardon, since it is a civil matter. You are not here legally, you have to go.
Wow – a Nixon comparison. Funny how some modern D politicians (Joe and Hillary) have earned that distinction and how their followers ignore it.
Now I wait for the MAGA backlash, even tho I’m no magite
In Jurassic Park Jeff Goldblum’s character tells Anthony Hopkins’s character and the DNA geneticist that they spent so much time on whether they could make dinosaurs from DNA in amber that they spent no time on whether they should do it. The amber of the Constitution’s boundaries on government freezes the terrors of government past. Is the Supreme Court going to have to plumb the depths of the pardon power against the backdrop of a President not playing with a full deck? Or is it a Marbury v Madison political question?
The pardons attributed to Biden are not his. He was fed those by radicals in the system. Their intent was to up-end constitutional law as we have known it – destroy the system, to put it mildly.
This administration deserves to be called, as it frequently is, the worst in our history. Nothing they do is much of a mystery if you go back to the core principles that seem to underlie it – thirst for one-party power, cronyism, anti-Americanism and a march towards cultural disharmony that favors traditionally oppressed minorities linked by voting patterns to their party whose rights and privileges now seem to have soared past those of their imagined present oppressors. Coupled with gross incompetence, it has left us weakened.
He finally does something within his constitutional authority, and you don’t like it. Just think; he could empty all federal prisons if he desired.
So I guess because he didn’t free ALL federal prisoners he is now a good guy? Wow, bad take of the day.