President Joe Biden’s senior aides are reportedly having vigorous internal discussions on whether to preemptively pardon a number of current and former officials who could face the wrath of President-elect Donald Trump.
Those who could be pardoned preemptively include Sen.-elect Adam Schiff (D-CA) and former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY
These morons just can’t help themselves…
Pardon “illegal” immigrants, Joe.
Did you see the Democrat’s rhetoric this election? You and I both know they won’t lift a finger.
Ooh, that’s a fun idea. I assume a pardon requires a named specific person, though, no?
Pull every expired visa, rubber stamp the pardons for all of them on the off chance the person overstayed. I think you can limit the pardon only to the “crime” of overstaying, so you’d avoid pardoning actual criminals. That would get you most of the way there.
Sounds like a good start, to be sure!
Pardons like this have been done a few times, most recently by Carter
People are being kind of blase with these comments here but shouldn’t we be a little worried? I mean if they’re taking it this seriously, then maybe all the blow hard Trump talking about going after his enemies isn’t the hot wind a lot of people think it is.
I can think of one person that could use a pardon even more, Joe
Preemptive pardons aren’t enforceable. A pardon says “you are guilt of a crime, but we aren’t going to make you suffer any penalty for it.” This can only legally occur after you have been before court of law and plead guilty or were convicted by a jury. Double jeopardy means you can’t be retried for the same crime of which you were convicted and subsequently pardoned.
A preemptive pardon says “you may be found guilty of something but we aren’t going to punish you for it if you are later found guilty.” The out going president can’t control what the incoming president does. So, it’s like changing the drapes for Trump to say that all the preemptive pardons aren’t enforceable null. There is no legal doctrine to protect these people if he goes after them.
It’s legal and enforceable. It was explicitly allowed by the Supreme Court in 1866.
I wouldn’t consider the Supreme Court legitimate, let alone expect consistency, or non partisan rulings from them
Making them violate the law themselves is still better than just assuming they will and not bothering
