On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a 6-3 decision concerning the criminal liability of President Donald Trump for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021. It ruled he could not be prosecuted, either as a sitting or former president, for actions that fell within his constitutional presidential powers. It was the first time SCOTUS recognized any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.
In a 43-page ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts stated some immunity was necessary to enable a president to “execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly.” He explained “absolute” immunity was mandated for presidents exercising their “core constitutional powers, such as the issuance of pardons.” Roberts’ pardon reference was interesting in light of former President Joe Biden’s unfettered use of the power during the last days of his presidency.
But the SCOTUS ruling was not well-received by Democrats who contended it was partisan. Accordingly, in August of that year, Democrats introduced legislation seeking to restore checks on presidential immunity. The bill was cited as the “No Kings Act” to underscore the fact no one was above the law. Ironically, as a president who during the past two months has handed out pardons as if he were a king, Biden declared back then, “This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America … not even the president of the United States.”
Possessed of a core constitutional power as a serving president, Biden had the legal authority to issue a pardon to whomever he chose – a power granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution. There is only one exception specified in the Constitution that denies such power and that is in cases involving impeachment. However, despite this sole written exception, historically there have been two instances of case law where revocation of a presidential pardon was achieved even though impeachment was not an issue.
The first such withdrawal occurred in 1869 after a pardon issued by outgoing President Andrew Johnson which incoming President Ulysses S. Grant sought to revoke. The judge ruled a pardon could not be revoked once completed, raising the issue then at what point does completion occur. The court determined completion became effective upon delivery to the recipient or one authorized to accept delivery on the recipient’s behalf. In this case, as the pardon was still in the possession of a messenger, delivery had not been completed, and Grant prevailed.
The second case occurred in 2008, involving President George W. Bush revoking a pardon he had issued a day earlier but had not yet delivered. Issued on behalf of Brooklyn developer Isaac Toussie who had pleaded guilty to mail fraud and other crimes, Bush, upon learning additional information about the recipient, successfully revoked it based on non-delivery.
The issue of presidential pardons has gained a high profile due to Biden doing what he told us just prior to taking office, in December 2020, he would never do. During a CNN interview, he was informed of rumors that Trump was contemplating doing something for his closest allies rarely done: issuing preemptive pardons – i.e., pardons issued before any charges have even been filed. But if no one has acted criminally, as Biden suggests, why then preemptively pardon them?
Asked about it at that time, then President-elect Biden expressed his objection. He stated, “Well, it concerns me in terms of what kind of precedent it sets in how the rest of the world looks at us as a nation of laws and justice.” He then assured listeners, “You’re not going to see in our administration that kind of approach to pardons.”
Contrary to this assurance, that is exactly what Biden did just before leaving office on Jan. 20, 2025. Doing so has proven to be one of the most controversial acts of his presidency. The recipients not only included five of his family members but a list of others such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired JCS Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, members of the former House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riots and their staff.
One anti-Trump critic hoping to add his name to the pardon me-too list but failed to get so recognized was Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
Biden left office on Jan. 20 as the least popular president in 75 years. While numerous factors contributed to this, such as inflation and illegal immigration, his pardoning of son Hunter, after pledging not to and then extending pardons as well to five other family members just minutes before heading off to Trump’s inauguration, did nothing to improve his popularity.
There are three reasons for this related to his pardons:
- While what he did was legal under the Constitution, Biden failed to act ethically by issuing a blanket pardon for Hunter and other Biden family members that dismissed 11 years of potential criminal activity just to ensure every potential crime was covered.
- In issuing Hunter’s pardon as well as those for other family members and for the anti-Trump critics, Biden justified his doing so by citing a flawed judicial system, undermining public trust in it. But the same judicial system convicting 1,500 January 6th defendants caused him no similar concerns. In fact, he had the audacity to tell them if they accepted pardons from Trump it would be a “confession of guilt for your crimes,” dismissing his own pardons as having a similar impact by specifically stating they were not an admission of guilt.
- There is evidence Biden himself may have financially benefited from Hunter’s questionable acts in selling access to his father’s office. Banks reported their concerns about payments to the Bidens through numerous shell companies. Whether rightly or wrongly, such family pardons support the public’s perception Biden sought to cover up his personal involvement by issuing them.
While Biden’s pardons prevent recipients from being held accountable for federal crimes, there may still be criminal acts they violated under state laws. If so, these hopefully will be pursued to determine what the truth is.
It will be interesting to see now that January 6 defendants were pardoned or had sentences commuted by the new president whether Biden supporters allege Trump has abused his authority. Doing so in the wake of Biden’s personal pardon extravaganza would be the height of hypocrisy.
* * *
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
