The Precedent of Preemptive Pardons: Now That Biden Set The Precedent, Should Trump Pardon His Cabinet Beforehand And Cut Them Loose To Do What Needs To Be Done?
In the final hours of his presidency, Joe Biden issued an unprecedented series of preemptive pardons to several of his family members, as well as key figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired General Mark Milley, and members of the House January 6 Committee. This move, aimed at shielding individuals from legal repercussions for their crimes under the incoming Trump administration, has set a notable precedent in the realm of executive clemency. These decisions justify similar actions by President Donald Trump upon his return to office, allowing him to undertake drastic measures in governance.
Joe Biden's decision to issue preemptive pardons was notably highlighted for its scope and timing. These pardons were explicitly meant to safeguard his family from what he described as "baseless and politically motivated" investigations. This included his siblings James, Francis, and Valerie Biden, as well as their spouses, none of whom had been formally charged but were targets due to their association with the Biden Crime Family during his presidency.
Biden's rationale was clear: to protect individuals from the criminal investigations of an incoming administration, in this case, one led by Donald Trump, who had made no secret of his intentions to pursue legal actions against political criminals. This move was an acknowledgment of guilt or at least an expectation of aggressive legal pursuits by the next administration, despite Biden's assertions that it was not an admission of wrongdoing as it clearly is.
Given this precedent, it would be reasonable that Donald Trump, upon his return to the presidency, would have both the legal and moral justification to employ similar tactics. If Biden could preemptively pardon individuals without them facing charges, why shouldn't Trump be able to extend the same courtesy to his administration?
Trump could argue that his administration needs to be protected from the same kind of "witch hunts" or politically motivated investigations that were aimed at him during his previous term. By preemptively pardoning his administration, including key figures like advisors, cabinet members, and even lower-level officials, Trump could create a buffer against legal challenges that would hinder his agenda or distract from governance.
The argument here would be that with such protections in place, Trump's administration could move forward with bold, potentially controversial policies without fear of immediate legal reprisal. This could include aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, sweeping changes in regulatory frameworks, or even revisiting previous legal decisions that were seen as unfavorable during his first term or even violating the pardons given by Biden and holding the crime family accountable anyway.
This sets a dangerous precedent where accountability is undermined for political gain, yet those for it could argue that it ensures stability and allows for the uninterrupted execution of a mandate given by the electorate.
Interestingly, even with preemptive pardons in place, there remains a pathway for accountability. The legal and ethical implications of presidential pardons do not erase the moral or public accountability one might owe. Public figures, whether pardoned or not, are still subject to the court of public opinion and the political consequences of their actions. Moreover, while a pardon might prevent criminal prosecution, it does not shield individuals from civil lawsuits or from the scrutiny of future administrations once the protective tenure of a presidency ends. Moreover, if the electorate demands justice, the current administration is mandated to acquire it.
Biden's use of preemptive pardons has undoubtedly opened Pandora's box regarding the use of presidential clemency powers. It provides a legal and moral framework where President Trump could, in theory, preemptively pardon his administration to ensure they can operate with less legal interference. However, this approach would also require careful consideration of the long-term implications on the balance of power, the integrity of legal systems, and the public trust in government actions. Whether such a strategy would be employed by Trump would depend on his interpretation of political necessity versus the principles of democratic accountability.
As America continues to grow, the precedent set by Biden's actions will likely be a point of contention and discussion in American politics, highlighting the delicate balance between power, justice, and governance as well as the delicate balance between a nation in success and a nation in collapse.
