Below is my column in the Hill on the decision of Joe Biden to end his presidency with a final act of ignominy. The use of his pardon authority to protect his own family members was the final corruption of Joe Biden.
Here is the column:
With only 15 minutes to go as president, Joe Biden snatched infamy from the jaws of obscurity.
With record-low polling and widely viewed as a “failed” president, Biden completed his one-man race to the bottom of ethics by issuing preemptive pardons to members of his own family.
The pardons were timed to guarantee that the media would not focus on yet another unethical act by this president. He need not have worried. For four years, the media worked tirelessly to deny or deflect the corruption scandal surrounding the Biden family.
The pardoning of James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John Owens and Francis Biden brought an inescapable clarity to the corruption of what is known in Washington as Biden Inc.
I have written about the Biden family’s corruption for decades. Influence-peddling has always been the favorite form of corruption in Washington, but this city has never seen the likes of the Biden family. Millions of dollars were secured from foreign sources and distributed to various Biden family members.
Biden repeatedly lied about the influence peddling. He long denied knowing about his son’s foreign clients or business. He denied ever meeting Hunter’s clients. Later, photos and emails showed that Biden had clearly met these clients and knew about the business deals. He was fully aware that his family was cashing in on his name and various offices.
Even Biden’s claims about handling the Trump cases were recently contradicted. While long claiming that he left these cases to the Justice Department and took no position on the merits, the Washington Post recently reported that Biden was irate over the failure to prosecute Trump before the election. He also reportedly lashed out at Attorney General Merrick Garland and said he regretted his appointment in light of the failure to nail Trump.
One of the most glaring lies was that he would never pardon his son. Few people believed him. Indeed, Hunter Biden’s bizarre criminal defense made no sense unless he knew that he had a pocket pardon if all else failed.
Once he was forced out of the presidential race, Biden was freed up to sign a pardon for any and all crimes committed over a ten-year period by his son. He insisted that he really hadn’t been lying. He claimed that no ordinary person would have been tried for his son’s crimes — a manifestly untrue statement. He also emphasized that he had to take this step as a father of a son who was a hopeless addict and has now been clean for years.
However, the latest family pardon shatters even that rationalization. These Bidens are not even charged with any crimes, but Biden wanted to give them cover from any possible prosecution for anything. It was the ultimate sign of contempt for the intelligence of the American public and the integrity of his office.
Biden has long exercised situational ethics and, with his powers coming to an end, the situation demanded that he cash out before his credit ended. In granting these pardons, Biden was seeking to protect not just his family but also himself. He was the object of the influence peddling and repeatedly lied to bury the scandal. This insulation of his family serves to move the threat farther from himself.
Biden, however, may have been too clever by half this time. In the final moments of his presidency, He broke into the open and exposed not just himself but his allies in the media. Reporters are now fully visible as willing dupes in one of the greatest corruption scandals in the history of this country.
In his pardon statement, Biden insisted that “the issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.” Of course, that is the very opposite of what most people will conclude. More importantly, the pardons will not end the threat to his family.
Figures such as James Biden have been accused of lying to Congress about the influence-peddling operation. He can still be subpoenaed and, if he lies, he can be charged with a new crime.
Indeed, after James Biden’s pardon, it will be argued that he has less basis to claim the right to remain silent about any alleged crimes committed during the period for which the pardon applies. (He could argue that there is a danger of state charges, but that is less credible due to the running of statutes of limitation and other factors.)
The pardons, if anything, make such an investigation even more compelling for those who want answers to longstanding questions of corruption.
Biden sealed his legacy with a finality that escapes most presidents. While his diminished mental capacity will remain an issue for historians, his longstanding lack of ethics was conclusively established with these pardons. It was Biden’s final act of corruption.
For a president who liked to call others “lying dog-faced pony soldiers,” Biden proved that, in the world of political corruption, the ponies are entirely optional.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Turley says, “I have written about the Biden family’s corruption for decades. Influence-peddling has always been the favorite form of corruption in Washington”
Too bad Tuirley wonn’t do the same for the current occupant of the WH
Off topic, but I want to be this guy when I grow up!
Fourteen minutes in and I’m captivated.
This guy is spectacular. How does he know where all the screws are, how everything comes apart, how to fix holes…in metal!!
I’ma finish watching tomr.
Like that guy on tv in Las Vegas who know how things work.
Oh, I’m not familiar. I only have free streaming channels. I’m frugal. Nah, I just don’t want to pay for services that are full of things I’ll never watch.
That does look satisfying.
I wish more modern appliances were made to be repaired and tinkered with, rather than disposable.
An entire column deleted? Censored? What happened to the Jan 23 article?
It disappeared.
The internet is forever, nothing just disappears. If you listen closely, you can hear the sphincters tightening of all those “Nazi” hunters.
I am tickled pink I discovered Professor Turley’s blog where I can read his brilliant thoughts and maybe find an interesting discussion or two.
A great group of interesting, knowledgeable, witty, and funny people. Excluding a few, but I just try to ignore them.
Perusing the comments, I sometimes literally laugh out loud.
Yo encuentro los mismos
Bien Viendo
lgbmiel
The president has the power to grant pardons for offenses against the U.S.
The president does not have the power to grant pardons for offenses against States or Municipalities.
The term offenses is not qualified or restricted.
The offenses may be of any type.
The offenses may be past, present, or future.
The amendment does not place a time specification on the offenses.
The amendment does not state any characteristics of any particular offenses; therefore, none are required as criteria.
It is innate, inherent, and understood that pardons are granted for offenses.
Mentioning the offenses is merely a redundancy employed as a device for the purposes of demonstration.
Thank you for taking the time to post a reply to me.
Your correct down to the last point.
I pardon you for anything you might have done is NOT pardoning an actual offense.
* the power to pardon shall be my superpower… me, the pope and Christ. Oh yes, the president.
It seems to me there is some interpretation involved when you say the term “offenses” includes those that do not exist at the time of the pardon, i.e., future offenses. Do you have any legal authority interpreting it that way, or is that your own personal interpretation?
“Do you have any legal authority?”
Yes, it is directly below, the very Article and Section, and it is not “interpretation” because no interpretation is necessary.
Why would you question the ability of people the caliber of the American Founders and Framers to clearly communicate a concept?
They included no qualifications or restrictions on pardons or offenses; it appears qualifications and restrictions are being created of whole cloth.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 2
The President shall…have Power to grant…Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pardons (any and all pardons) for offenses (any and all offenses) against the U.S. and not against States or Municipalities.
You are desperately seeking the qualifications and restrictions you desire; they are not there.
You are trying your best to manipulate the outcome to your liking; you cannot.
When it comes to interpreting constitutional text, it makes no sense to quote the text itself as the interpretation. The text doesn’t say anything about “pardoning” future offenses, which, as a matter of simple English, makes no sense. A person can’t pardon what has not been done. They can immunize future actions from criminal liability, but not pardon them. If you can’t cite any legal authority for your counterintuitive reading (which you obviously can’t since you haven’t done so), then you’re just spouting off about something you know nothing about.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
– William Jefferson Clinton
______________________________
The Article states that the president has the power to pardon; it enumerates two qualifications or restrictions; time is not one of them.
It makes no sense to “interpret” language that all are capable of reading with comprehension.
“The President shall…have Power to grant…Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
The president has the absolute power to pardon except in cases against states and municipalities and of impeachment.
The only qualifications or restrictions in the Article are clear and express:
– The president has no power to pardon for offenses against the United States.
– The president has no power to pardon in cases of impeachment.
The president has the power, without limitation, to pardon in any and all other ways, shapes, and forms, certainly past, present, and future.
I have refrained from addressing your claims because they are both unreasonable and illogical. I have learned (sometimes painfully learned) that it is almost 100% useless to enter into a discussion with someone who is making unreasonable and illogical claims.
–The president has the power, without limitation, to pardon in any and all other ways, shapes, and forms, certainly past, present, and future.
This is simply not accurate.
The power to issue pardons is not limited. For what is definitely limited.
These limitation comes from the very nature of a pardon, what a pardon actually is. A pardon is forgiveness of an offense. A pardon provides restoration. It restores a person’s good name, it restores that which was taken away from the person through due process. It restores the person’s freedom and their Rights.
A person who has not committed an offense cannot be forgiven. A person who has not had their freedom, their Rights taken away cannot have those things restored by a pardon. No one can restore something that has not first taken been away. Taken away through due process. Taken away through legal action.
Many people on here have made excellent points. pchasgottoend’s point concering innocent until proven guilty is very important. That is our system of justice, our system of due process — of which pardons are a part.
A pardon is a legal action. None of these people have gone through any type of legal action against them.
(cont in next comment)
please pardon my typos.
🙂
No one can restore something that has not first taken been away.
Oh for an edit button. Trying again….
No one can restore something that has not first been taken away.
(cont from previous comment)
May have committed? No. Cannot legally be done. No legal action can be taken to restore, when there was no legal action that first took away.
Now, let’s look at your claim that future actions can be pardoned. No. Absolutely not. Cannot be done. Again, repeating myself — but it’s necessary — a pardon is forgiveness of an offense, it is restoration of what was legally taken away. It is a legal action that addresses a previous legal action.
Concerning ‘may’ have done and ‘future’ actions, it is immunity from prosecution that is being offered. Is it even legally possible to immunize from prosecution actions/events that haven’t occurred? Question to anyone.
A president has no Constitutionally delegated authority to offer immunity from prosecution.
Next, we will look at the other clemency powers of the president.
(cont. next comment)
(cont from previous comment)
…and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Executive clemency may take several forms, including pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve. https://www.justice.gov/pardon
In your comments you do not take into consideration the other clemency powers of the president. A pardon is just one clemency power. These powers are connected in the Constitution — they are not separate powers — reprieves and pardons. Both are powers of clemency.
The four types of executive clemency are pardons, commutations, reprieves, and remission of fines. Pardons forgive the crime, commutations reduce the sentence, reprieves temporarily delay punishment, and remission of fines reduces or eliminates financial penalties.
The other clemency powers require a conviction and sentence:
There can be no reprieve of a punishment unless a punishment has been given.
There can be no commutation of a sentence unless a sentence has been enacted.
There can be no remission of fines, asset forfeitures, penalties unless those have first been imposed.
Clemency is a legal action. It is part of our justice system, part of due process.
There can be no clemency — legal action — unless there was a prior legal action against a person. Clemency addresses these prior legal actions.
Final point.
Previous preemptive pardons.
They are not Constitutional for the reasons I have already outlined.
That a president abused his Constitutionally delegated authority to pardon and this action was not challenged does not make this action Constitutional.
An unconstitutional and illegal action is not made Constitutional just because that action is not challenged.
Precedent can’t change the Constitution.
Court rulings can’t change the Constitution.
Legislation can’t change the Constitution.
EOs and regulations can’t change the Constitution.
General…without trial or conviction as in Nixon. Apparently Joe Don is privvy to his family’s political offenses. Bigly
It’s all in bitcoin.
The end
* In today’s language it was disappeared.
It must have done something wrong or been a threat to someone important to have been disappeared.
😉
* every now and then the blog fragments and resections. We are now in a loop without that article.
The Moderators found at that your last name is Stephanopolous, and they became afraid that you were here to set Turley up for a big defamation lawsuit???
It was something I said.
Pardon
Bye yall.
At least in the press, or in entertainment etc. or any other aspect of corporate control where people were paid to do so: I can’t find a single thing praising Biden, not before he was installed in 2020; in fact, other than being Obama’s VP, there isn’t much there at all, in those terms. Everything that has happened in America since 2008 has been straight up gaslighting the likes of which we had never seen before. Not even With Bill Clinton or W. it has been madness, and thank the gods we are now done.
And yet – do not expect the modern left to cease in their hunger for tyranny.
Biden’s preemptive pardon of Milley, Liz Cheney, etc, and his family members was an act of “corruption” ?!?
Do we live on the same planet? Trump has been explicit about exacting “retribution” for years. He has said that Liz Cheney “belongs in prison” (!), that Anthony Fauci is “guilty of crimes against humanity”. He just pardoned every damned insurrectionist regardless of their violence. He is loading his cabinet with Loyalists to Trump, not people loyal to the Constitution.
Trump’s entire life is a testament to his amorality, his malignant narcissism, and needless planned cruelty (have you forgotten his policy of the separation of immigrant parents from their children coupled with the deliberate lack of recordkeeping?).
If ever there was an example in the long history of the United States of an autocrat to be feared, it is Trump. You have gone too far with this column.
Clearly you became lost in your search for CNN or MSNBC. It seems Fauci’s effects are wearing down on you (likely a clot obstructing blood flow to your brain it appears). Though it is unfortunate that the far left has cursed you, as well, with their disease of deceptively self-destructive psychosis, at least you can enjoy the rest of your time in the permanent state of blissful ignorance. Not everyone has the luxury of being “unburdened by what has been”, nor the ability to ignore the truths of reality. I’ll be praying for you.
“Do we live on the same planet? Trump has been explicit about exacting “retribution” for years.”
Trump’s greatest acrimony was directed at Hillary Clinton. Did she commit suicide? Is she in jail? Was she prosecuted?
There is a difference between rhetoric and action. You should see the point quickly: Trump fulfills campaign promises rapidly, yet Hillary remains free. Government censorship is also quickly disappearing. Your statements reveal more about your personal predictions than about reality.
Adherence to the Liberal Agenda is the perfect insulation against being held accountable for unethical practices and criminal conduct. If one is a member of the Liberal Club, criminality is forgiven on an a priori basis. If a politician is Conservative, their actions are labeled dastardly and worthy of being drawn and quartered. If a Liberal Club Member, the same offense would be brushed off, even praised, as merely shrewd. The saddest part is that a Conservative doesn’t have to be guilty. Any old accusation will suffice. When a complicit media will happily propagate the lie, who needs the Truth? The Biden crime family illustrates the phenomenon beautifully. Many have pointed out Joe Biden’s corruption going back to the early 1970s, yet has he ever been held accountable by the criminal justice system or the media? Of course not. Over the years it has metastasized into a sophisticated criminal enterprise. And nobody in the Liberal Club cares. Or the media. Or the sycophantic voters who will support them, ignoring their crimes in order to protect their precious Liberal Agenda. It’s a sad commentary on the state of the nation.
Well stated.
Biden got wealthy the old fashioned way – he sold influence through cut-out family members! No gold bars in his suit jackets or gifted Mercedes cars like Menendez the Moron! No, old Joey had a La Cosa Nostra set up where he was the Godfather and the Fredo-Hunter was the bag man! The rest of the family were just salesman and money launderers. Well it seems crime does pay if you are ensconced and rising through the US Government ranks! We all know Biden isn’t the only one!!!
* The numbers are now so inflated they’ve invented bitcoin. People can’t just buy bitcoin. They need a bitcoin buyer and you must have billions to buy in. Forget gold bars. You’d need to look for Joe’s bitcoin.
* Saudi prince Salman just invested 400 billion in the US? What exactly is the investment?
The Demo-rats 45 min rant TODAY [press conf] [1/22/25] about Pres Trump’s pardons of January 6’ers is a total joke. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANOTHER FREAKING THING ABOUT THIS, ESP SINCE FMR PRES BIDEN pardoned his corrupt -ss family, political operatives like Liz Cheney, Gen. Milley, & cop killers & other murderers, rapists, ETC. & the dems were SILENT!! Hypocrites all!
Biden has admitted his corrupt nature a very long time ago:
Wow.
The title of this post is interesting. Bidens corruption…
JT, why No mention of…
This came just days after the Trump family launched a crypto coin in their own name — a memecoin. You can’t spend it. This isn’t a currency or a piece of decentralized financial infrastructure meant to offer services to the unbanked or commerce to the metaverse. It’s just a way to invest in Trump’s fortunes and invest in Trump. The memecoin shot to more than $70, and the Trump family and its partners seem to own about 80 percent of the coins — making their holdings worth, notionally, tens of billions of dollars.
Then Melania Trump launched her own memecoin, which also shot up, although it seemed to harm the value of the Trump memecoin. This is all insane to even try to describe. Melania’s memecoin comes after she sold her biopic and another project, on which she is an executive producer, to Amazon, for $40 million.
The scale of the graft and the grift right now: It’s astonishing, and it’s all out in the open. It’s not like politics was free of corruption in 2018 or 2022, but this is a new era of brazenness and cashing in on power. And who is going to stop Trump and his family? Who is going to tell them no?
Were people Forced to Buy Trump Crypto ?
Was there any use of government power ?
Graft is not something you oppose.
Graft is the abuse of government power for money.
Free people buying and selling things to other free people is the individual liberty that this country was founded on.
This is trump doing this. Any thoughts?
“I’m also troubled by the way Trump switched positions on TikTok. He hasn’t been clear on why he changed his mind, but the timing is curious. In March 2024 Trump met Jeff Yass, a billionaire who is a major investor in ByteDance; Trump says they didn’t discuss TikTok, but it’s around that time that he reversed himself and sought to save the app.”
Trump’s views on TikTok shifted when he learned he was very popular on TikTok.
Guess who said…
“I had a feeling that there were people watching what was happening and wondering, Was anyone going to say anything?””
Who will stand up and speak truth to power? JT?
Upstate Farmer? Oldman from Kansas? Gi….no, not her…James? S Meyer? Wail I got it…Floyd!
Nope. Not me. It was that goofy woke woman preacher.
Sorry Floyd et al
Just goofing about
Here, I found this wonderful critique of The Balmy Bishop:
It was not a rant, it was calm reasoned Christian thinking.
How is separating kids from their parents a “Christian” thing?
Many of those so-called families are not families at all. You don’t seem to realize the cartels & /or the coyotes pass kids around to the adult migrants/ illegals to make getting into the U.S. easier. THAT is why they are initially separated. It isn’t permanent! Chill out, OK?
* the facts about this are unkn. Many children have been lost. Some were sent here alone with strangers and a note with a name and phone number. You think.the border should close? Yes, very dangerous and no, children should stay with parents.
Christ almost never refers to government
When he cals you to feed to hungry cloth the naked, house the homless
HE MEANS YOU
He does not mean vote for people who will take other peoples money to do something you think it good.
If you think you are moral or following christ by voting in policies that steal from some to pretend and fail to help otheres,
you are seriously deceived.
You are sick to listen to this Bull Sh!t.
There is no compassion, none, zero, nada in this interview. Disgusting.
There are certainly Christian values in these people. Sickening
Ask Obama! I think the new Administration will deport them all together.
This insane idea of preemptive pardons needs to be challenged to put an end to all this nonsense. There’s nothing in the Constitution that justifies the horribly dangerous preemptive pardon power of a president that practically invites federal criminality with a corrupt president (like we had with Biden in spades). The Framers of our Constitution who abhorred King-like power would have been horrified at the idea and certainly did not intend this interpretation in the simple statement of Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. DOJ should ignore the disgraceful Biden preemptive “pardons”, investigate any they suspect of crimes and let them take it to SCOTUS. I would expect sanity from SCOTUS in rejecting the dangerous, King-like presidential power of preemptive pardons & overturn any previous ruling that suggests their validity.
Furthermore, preemptive pardons, like self-pardons, are precluded by the requirement that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” in Article II, Section III.
…and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Looking at the other clemency powers delegated to the president by the Constitution — reprieves, commutations, and remissions — they all require a conviction and sentence before any can be granted.
Reprieves and pardons are connected in the Constitution, it is supremely illogical to say three of a president’s clemency powers need a conviction and sentence, but one does not.
Due Process is the cornerstone? basis? foundation? of our judicial system, it is guaranteed by the Constitution. Reprieves and pardons are part of that due process system. How can a person be granted a pardon — forgiveness, restoration of good name and Rights — when none of those things were taken away in the first place through due process?
biden’s statement is that these people have done nothing wrong, but they might be investigated and prosecuted, and that is why he is issuing the pardons. He literally said that — he is issuing the pardons so they can’t be investigated and prosecuted. There are no crimes, he is basically granting immunity from prosecution. That’s not a delegated presidential power.
People point to Ford and Nixon, well that was unconstitutional, too. Of what had Nixon been convicted?
“The President shall…have Power to grant…Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
The two qualifications to the power to grant pardons are that they be “for offenses against the U.S.” and not inferior levels of government and that they not relate to impeachment.
No other notions, considerations, ideations, or “interpretations” may alter the clear words of the English language.
No judge or justice has any power to legislate or to amend the Constitution.
The President shall have power to grant pardons, not qualified and of his choosing, in cases of offenses against the U.S., but not relating to impeachment.
Thank you for the reply, but you didn’t address any of the points I made in my comment.
What offenses were pardoned?
biden was extremely clear that these people haven’t committed any offenses against the US, so what offenses were pardoned?
He also made very clear that he was issuing these ‘pardons’ to prevent investigation and prosecution of what he claims are innocent people. That’s obstruction of justice because a president isn’t delegated authority to issue grants of immunity from prosecution. If these people didn’t commit any offenses against the US — which biden, and a couple of them, insist they didn’t do — there can’t be a pardon. A president can’t pardon nothing, there has to be an offense against the US. biden and these people insist there were no offenses, that they are innocent. Can’t have it both ways.
No judge or justice has any power to legislate or to amend the Constitution.
Don’t know why you included this. I will add that neither does a president.
Care to respond to the points or are you just going to cite the Constitution — which I already did in my comment.
While I absolutely beleive these pardons stink to high heaven.
The power to pardon is not restricted.
I do not agree with the claim that they can not be pre-emptive.
But I do agree with the claim that they must be specific.
A president can not bar any investigation of any kind.
As you not he MUST pardon Offenses.
I do not think it is necescary to be specific about the law that was violated.
I do think it is required to be specific about the “offense” that is being pardoned.
Thank you for the reply, at least you tried to address the points.
The pardon power is definitely restricted — there must be an offense to pardon.
Just as with a reprieve – there must first be a conviction and sentence before there can be a reprieve.
A commutation cannot be offered unless there is a sentence to commute.
No remission can be offered unless the person has been convicted of a crime and a fine levied or assets forfeited.
A pardon is no different. There cannot be a pardon of nothing. There must be an offense to pardon. A pardon forgives and restores the good name and Rights of a person. That can’t be done until those things have first been taken away.
It is all part of due process. A person must go through due process — trial, conviction, sentence — before the result of that due process can be pardoned. Unless there is a conviction, there is no offense to pardon.
As I keep repeating, it is supremely illogical for 3 of a president’s clemency powers to require a conviction and sentence, but one power requires nothing at all. These powers are connected in the Constitution, if three of these powers are restricted, the fourth is too.
Lgbmiel, I appreciate the direction of your reasoning. I fail to see any specific guidance in the Constitution preventing people from taking either side of this question.
Some point to the Nixon dilemma. But that pardon was never challenged, making it an essentially meaningless example of convenience taken at the time. Even then, there was at least some notion of a crime. The Constitution explicitly states, “***offenses against*** the United States.”
My question involves a quid pro quo aligned with obstruction of justice and abuse of power.
Good morning, S. Meyer. I appreciate you taking the time to post a reply and your kind words.
I don’t believe it is only in the text of the Constitution, but also in the nature(?) of the action that provides the guidance.
I agree about the Nixon pardon. Nixon hadn’t been convicted of any crime, so there was nothing for Ford to pardon. I think he would have been impeached, but impeachment is political. Probably why impeachment can’t be pardoned? If Ford hadn’t pardoned Nixon, would Nixon have been criminally prosecuted? That I cannot guess.
I think biden’s actions were obstruction and abuse of power.
Again, thank you. I’m new to Professor Turley’s blog and I’m impressed with the caliber of so many of the commenters.
lgbmiel
The president has the power to grant pardons for offenses against the U.S.
The president does not have the power to grant pardons for offenses against States or Municipalities.
The term offenses is not qualified or restricted.
The offenses may be of any type.
The offenses may be past, present, or future.
The amendment does not place a time specification on the offenses.
The amendment does not state any characteristics of any particular offenses; therefore, none are required as criteria.
It is innate, inherent, and understood that pardons are granted for offenses.
Mentioning the offenses is merely a redundancy employed as a device for the purposes of demonstration.
Aww….bless your heart.
There is no offense without a conviction since everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Can’t pardon a person innocent under the law. So not just a defined offense but proven.
Brilliant point!
Nonsense. There is only an offence if there is a conviction since everyone is innocent under the law until proven guilty. Can’t pardon the innocent.
It was not a valid pardon, there just was no will to pursue a conviction of Nixon and so the matter was let go.
I agree a pardon must be for an offense, and the offence must be specified or the pardon is for nothing
I must apologize Mr. Say. I fear my reply to you was rude.
I hope you will forgive my unintentional lapse in manners.
Nonsense. A pardon can be given for only a convicted offense since all are innocent under the law until proven guilty. Cannot pardon the innocent under the law.
Besides, the Framers of our Constitution who abhorred King-like power would have been horrified at the idea of preemptive pardons such as Biden gave and that matters. Furthermore, preemptive pardons, like self-pardons, are precluded by the requirement that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” in Article II, Section III. That would hardly be the case with a corrupt president giving preemptive pardons, say, to criminal cronies whose federal crimes in the past (maybe stealing taxpayer millions) were only discovered after the president left office and was given 10% as the “Big guy”.
You make a solid argument and a strong case for review.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate the positive feedback.
Pardons and offenses are not qualified or restricted in the letter of the amendment; they may be any and all types of pardons and any and all types of offenses including past, present, and future.
Your desired outcome is not there; you are creating out of whole cloth.
What ‘letter of amendment’ — you’ve used ‘amendment’ several times in your comments — to what amendment are you referring?
My mistake; I should have said Article.
When it’s dinner time, my wife hounds me incessantly to come to the table.
I tell her repeatedly that she’s going to cause me to make a mistake; she did.
I blame her for the distraction…as usual.
Thank you for clarifying. A husband should never keep his wife waiting, and I hope it was a good dinner.
He granted immunity is correct. He has no power to do so unless Hunter and the rest were secret agents in which case they already had immunity as spies?
Suddenly had a picture of Hunter, Fauci, Liz Cheney, and Milley all dressed up as Mad Magazine’s Spy vs Spy running around blowing each other up.
Hear Hear!
I don’t think Trump and Bondi are going to let that stand in the way of bringing equal justice back to our nation.🙏
Yep, free speech at last…
A local TV meteorologist in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is now out of a job after a pair of posts criticizing the world’s richest man.
Oops, don’t; say bad stuff about musk or trump. That is not allowed.
Boo hoo
^^ Is this satire? ^^
Trump’s billionaires are richer than the Democrats billionaires…
Individually yes – Musk is the wealthiest man on the planet.
Collectively, Democrats have more support from Billionaires bu a very large marging.
The Trump administration is putting a halt to agreements that require reforms of police departments where the Justice Department found a pattern of misconduct, according to a memo issued Wednesday.
There we go, that should pacify the police union. Sure we let some guys go that beat up cops. But hey, we are going to not prosecute if you beat up and kill those you suspect of committing crimes. Seems like a fair trade to me.
Boo hoo
^^ The crocodile tears of our paid DNC troll keep getting funnier ^^
UYou appear to be unaware of how this racker works.
DOJ announces it is investigating. Really that means it threatens the department to get them to enter into a consent decree.
They decree requires the department to agree to a laundry list of leftist changes to “settle” the conflict.
There is little or no actual investigation, and there is no finding of actual misconduct.
Statistical data shows that crime rises dramatically in a jurisdiction after it enteres into an agreement with DOJ.
NOthing that Trump has done precludes DA’s AG’s or US attorney’s from ACTUALLY investigating police that misbehave and prosecuting them if warranted.
Nothing Trump has done prevents individuals who allege to have suffered real harm to sue the police for that harm in a civil suit were the standard of proof is much lower than a riminal court.
One of the problem with left wing nuts is they want a law against everything – even things that are already illegal many times over.
“These Bidens are not even charged with any crimes”
How in the world can anyone actually be pardoned if they haven’t been charged, tried, and convicted of anything?
Appears this ought to be looked into. The pardons need crime and conviction otherwise it’s like saying ‘shave and a haircut’ without following up with ‘two bits’
https://youtu.be/6ds6w7SkHyw
He basically granted immunity, not a pardon.
* interesting comment. He can’t grant immunity. Got em.
Bingo! I’ll second that notion.
Nixon was not charged with a crime and was pardoned. I know, one of those facts that just get in the way of a good story.
What crime did he commit?
Nixon resigned. Did ford specify the crime in the pardon? Obstruction?
He pardoned him for nothing. It was a gesture, you imbecile. Not an attempt to cover up corruption.
It’s pretty easy to look up…
Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Here is the Ford pardon of Nixon.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-4311-granting-pardon-richard-nixon
President Ford lost re-election after pardon. Trump could have pardon his family members or himself when he left office. He didn’t!
That was unconstitutional, also.
Boo hoo