Image 01 Image 03

Biden Issues Preemptive Pardons for Milley, Fauci, J6 Committee, and Others

Biden Issues Preemptive Pardons for Milley, Fauci, J6 Committee, and Others

Lizzy Cheney got her preemptive pardon.

At the very last minute, President Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons for Gen. Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the J6 Committee, and those who testified before the committee:

General Milley served our nation for more than 40 years, serving in multiple command and leadership posts and deploying to some of the most dangerous parts of the world to protect and defend democracy. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he guided our Armed Forces through complex global security threats and strengthened our existing alliances while forging new ones.

For more than half a century, Dr. Fauci served our country. He saved countless lives by managing the government’s response to pressing health crises, including HIV/AIDS, as well as the Ebola and Zika viruses. During his tenure as my Chief Medical Advisor, he helped the country tackle a once-in-a-century pandemic. The United States is safer and healthier because of him.

On January 6, 2021, American democracy was tested when a mob of insurrectionists attacked the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a fair and free election by force and violence. In light of the significance of that day, Congress established the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes of the insurrection. The Select Committee fulfilled this mission with integrity and a commitment to discovering the truth. Rather than accept accountability, those who perpetrated the January 6th attack have taken every opportunity to undermine and intimidate those who participated in the Select Committee in an attempt to rewrite history, erase the stain of January 6th for partisan gain, and seek revenge, including by threatening criminal prosecutions.

He wrote:

I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong—and in fact have done the right thing—and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.

That is why I am exercising my authority under the Constitution to pardon General Mark A. Milley, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Members of Congress and staff who served on the Select Committee, and the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the Select Committee. 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. Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country.

Biden did not include Special Counsel Jack Smith, former FBI Director Christopher Wray, or Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Remember, it’s only wrong to target political opponents when it’s a Republican, especially Trump.

It is totally okay to do it when it’s a Democrat targeting a Republican, especially Trump.

I’m serious

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Great, no 5th amendment in hearings for them, full exposure to perjury charges. Exposure is much more important than punishment.

    DSHornet in reply to rhhardin. | January 20, 2025 at 7:28 am

    Did anyone tell this pathetic old man that he just said they did wrong? Oh, wait, he didn’t do this at all – it was his handlers.

    Has anybody figured out who has actually been in charge the last four years?
    .

      Milhouse in reply to DSHornet. | January 20, 2025 at 7:51 am

      No, he didn’t say they did wrong.

      Biden added that receiving a pardon “should not be mistaken as an acknowledgement that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.”

      Which is of course correct. Many innocent people have been pardoned, and one of the major reasons why pardons are granted in the first place is to correct miscarriages of justice.

      There has long been a common idea that accepting a pardon implies an admission of guilt, but it has no basis.

        thalesofmiletus in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 8:14 am

        There has long been a common idea that accepting a pardon implies an admission of guilt, but it has no legal basis.

        FIFY

        In my opinion it does. There is no need to issue these pardons if they have done nothing wrong.

          fscarn in reply to rbj1. | January 20, 2025 at 9:52 am

          Right, ya don’t need a pardon if ya’ve done nothing wrong. All of them are now tainted.

          And they still can be investigated. Plus the authorities of the different states can go after them for violation of state laws.

          MajorWood in reply to rbj1. | January 20, 2025 at 10:45 am

          Brandon’s sole good deed was to call out the people of interest for us, officially.

          Milhouse in reply to rbj1. | January 21, 2025 at 7:30 am

          That’s ridiculous. You can’t possibly believe it yourself. So are you saying all the people Trump pardoned today are guilty?! Are you saying that if they’re innocent they should refuse the pardons?!

          What do you think happens when a president or governor pardons someone because they are innocent? Does the pardon automatically make them guilty?! Iva Toguri was falsely convicted of treason and served more than six years in prison, for nothing. Eventually President Ford pardoned her, on the grounds of her innocence. According to you he shouldn’t have done that, and by accepting the pardon she was confessing her guilt! That makes no sense at all.

          Or how about Caspar Weinberger? Bush Sr pardoned him preemptively, specifically because in Bush’s opinion a vindictive special prosecutor, bent on turning policy differences into crimes, had falsely indicted him. Bush didn’t believe Weinberger had done anything wrong, so according to you should he not have pardoned him?!

        Juris Doctor Doom in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 9:31 am

        I love this broad pardon power, even when no actual crime is alleged, or miscarriage of justice undertaken yet! I say, Trump should absolutely pardon all Jan 6ers as of today, and then offer all pardons to, at least, everyone who donated to his campaigns in 2016, 2020 and 2024, if not voted for him. I mean, why not? Trump voters have faced “persecution” and “miscarriages of justice” for 8 long years. Let’s test how far this this broad pardon power really goes. I assume you’ll be ok with all of that, right?

        Perhaps technically correct. However, the reality of it is that Biden put a big “GUILTY” label on each and every one of these traitors that they will carry through history..

        Frankly, Schiff deserves all the scorn and humiliation he will get.

        The beautiful part: We don’t have to wait until a court decides the matter.

        That is Biden’s parting gift. Happy DJT Day.

        (However, for those of you who love technicalities, I believe Congress and the courts will be exploring the constitutionality of these blanket pardons).

          OwenKellogg-Engineer in reply to Leslie Eastman. | January 20, 2025 at 11:00 am

          I agree. I think there should be some judicial scrutiny places on pardons for Pre-Crimes; or for any crime committed that has not yet had a criminal charge assessed.

          The list of people Biden pardoned is quite long. I hear there’s a shorter list of people he did not pardon.

          (However, for those of you who love technicalities, I believe Congress and the courts will be exploring the constitutionality of these blanket pardons).

          What is there to explore? Pardons in advance of any charge have been practiced since the dawn of the Republic and earlier.

          The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized that the pardon power in the US constitution derived directly from the equivalent power of the UK sovereign, and that all the pre-revolutionary precedents on the UK power apply to the USA power as well.

          And in 1867 the Supreme court explicitly held:

          The President had the right to grant an amnesty. The Constitution gives him unlimited power in respect to pardon, save only in cases of impeachment. The Constitution does not say what sort of pardon; but the term being generic necessarily includes every species of pardon, individual as well as general, conditional as well as absolute. It is, therefore, within the power of the President to limit his pardon, as in those cases in which it is individual and after conviction, to the mere release of the penalty—it is equally within his prerogative to extend it so as to include a whole class of offenders—to interpose this act of clemency before trial or conviction; and not merely to take away the penalty, but to forgive and obliterate the offence.

          OwenKellog:

          I think there should be some judicial scrutiny places on pardons for Pre-Crimes; or for any crime committed that has not yet had a criminal charge assessed.

          I don’t understand what you mean by “pre-crimes”. A crime that has not yet been charged or even discovered has still been committed. In what sense is it a “pre-crime”?

          I hope you’re not under the impression that any president, including Biden, has ever purported to pardon crimes that would be committed in the future! It’s obvious and uncontroversial that no pardon can do that. Pardons wipe away crimes that already exist, even if no one knows about them. They can’t wipe away what doesn’t yet exist.

        When I said ‘pardon me,’ I merely meant that I farted…

        chrisboltssr in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 10:25 am

        Yes, he did. He didn’t have to use words; his actions spoke loudly.

        There has long been a common idea that accepting a pardon implies an admission of guilt, but it has no basis.

        Does the US Supreme Court know that you have overridden them?

        In the case of Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), the Court ruled:

        This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.

        I could be wrong, but it seems the Supreme Court has established a basis for the fact that acceptance of a pardon is a confession of the crime.

        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/

          OwenKellogg-Engineer in reply to gitarcarver. | January 20, 2025 at 11:02 am

          And just the opposite in United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 (1833), where a pardon was refused. SCOTUS upheld that one does not have to accept a pardon.

          henrybowman in reply to gitarcarver. | January 20, 2025 at 4:06 pm

          I don’t understand the claim that these concepts disagree with one another. In fact, they reinforce one another. If you don’t want to condemn yourself, you can refuse the pardon.

          Milhouse in reply to gitarcarver. | January 21, 2025 at 8:00 am

          You are misrepresenting Burdick. The court DID NOT SAY that a pardon implies guilt. It said that there exists such a popular perception, and for that reason a person might want to refuse a pardon, so people won’t mistakenly think he’s admitted guilt.

          Indeed there is such a perception, as evidenced in this very thread, where so many commenters are under the same false impression.

          But it is false. In reality there is no such implication. Innocent people can and have been pardoned, and have accepted those pardons, without any implication of guilt.

          If you were innocent and falsely charged or convicted, or afraid that you might be falsely charged or convicted, and the president or governor offered to pardon you, would you refuse it, just because you’re innocent?! Of course not.

          Indeed, even a guilty plea doesn’t mean a person has really admitted guilt. Everyone who knows anything about the criminal justice system knows very well that literally every day innocent people falsely plead guilty because they’ve been made an offer they can’t afford to refuse. All a guilty plea really means is that the defendant consents to be convicted and punished as if he were guilty, while actually maintaining his innocence all along. You can’t safely assume that someone is guilty just because he “admitted” it.

        Joe-dallas in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 10:37 am

        Is there a link to the actual pardon?
        Is there a time period for the pardons?

        The last 5 years or 10 years? Hunter’s pardon covered a specific time period – 10 years as recall.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 10:55 am

        How is there a miscarriage of justice in a pre-emptive pardon? That’s where your argument breaks down.

          henrybowman in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 20, 2025 at 4:07 pm

          Sorry — fat-fingered the red one.

          Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 21, 2025 at 8:04 am

          President Bush (Sr) preemptively pardoned Caspar Weinberger in order to head off what he believed to be a miscarriage of justice. He believed that Weinberger was being railroaded by a vindictive Democrat special prosecutor, so he put an end to it by pardoning him.

        kelly_3406 in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 8:53 pm

        Didn’t the SCOTUS decision in Burdick vs US (1915) specifically state that there is “imputation of guilt” for a person that has accepted a pardon?

        caseoftheblues in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2025 at 5:54 am

        The 1915 Supreme Court would beg to differ….

        Ahem cough, cough…*no basis*?

        Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)

        “There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.”

No surprises here. Whatever other options exist to apply justice will now have to be used. Perhaps State level actions and civil action for Fauci as an example, gonna take more creativity than I have on a my first cup of coffee.

Brother James? No pardon?

Disgusting

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | January 20, 2025 at 7:45 am

Of course it’s an admission of guilt. They committed crimes against humanity, they attempted a coup against the United States, they conducted political persecutions, and Milley committed treason.

Go after their subordinates, who didn’t get pardons, and have them tell the truth about what occurred. Those subordinates likely committed the crimes or were accessory to those crimes.

Facing lifetime prison sentences and financial ruin will help grease their gums to start flapping.

    No, it is not an admission of guilt.

    And no, Milley did not commit treason. Insubordination, probably, but not treason.

    Warning the Chinese of an impending attack would of course be treason. Telling them that he would do so was not. He made the promise secure in the knowledge that he would never have occasion to honor it, since it was obvious that Trump was not going to order an attack.

      Yes it is. You are wrong

      Evil Otto in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 9:04 am

      Then why did he promise it? If he knew he would never have to honor it, if it was so obvious to him, then why bother at all? You’re making the mistake of assuming someone thinks like you. YOU know Trump would never order such an attack. I know it. But why are you assuming that he knew it?

      And you’re splitting the hair mighty fine. If it would be treason to inform the Chinese of an attack, then was he not promising to commit treason?

        I agree with Otto’s response to Evil Milhouse.

        Milhouse in reply to Evil Otto. | January 21, 2025 at 8:12 am

        You’re either an idiot or pretending to be one. The WHOLE POINT was that, as Milley and every other American knew, Trump was not going to suddenly go crazy and order an attack on China. That just wasn’t something that could have happened.

        But the Chinese are not Americans, they don’t understand Americans all that well, and they were nervous. And the last thing we want them to be is nervous! That’s the last thing Trump would want, or anyone else. It was imperative to calm them down and assure them that there was no attack coming and they didn’t need to get their retaliation in first.

        Had MIlley asked Trump whether he could give the Chinese such an assurance, I’m sure Trump would have approved it. Instead Milley took it on himself to make the assurance. By doing so he may have staved off a war. But it wasn’t his place to do that on his own. He should have asked first.

          Juris Doctor Doom in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2025 at 10:02 am

          So, China was ready to turn the key and launch the nukes on Jan. 6? And Milley HAD to take action, is what you’re saying? And go over Trump’s head to do so? Seriously? Does Milley pay you to spin this sh!t?

      Juris Doctor Doom in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 9:35 am

      “Warning the Chinese of an impending attack would of course be treason. Telling them that he would do so was not. He made the promise secure in the knowledge that he would never have occasion to honor it, since it was obvious that Trump was not going to order an attack.” That is beyond ludicrous. Actually akes me hungry for pretzels, its so twisted. And what if Trump had? Only then it would be treason? Warning an enemy nation of an impending attack by your own military is treason, but telling said enemy, FYI, I will warn you wherever one is launched isn’t.” Are you insane?

        henrybowman in reply to Juris Doctor Doom. | January 20, 2025 at 4:10 pm

        Exactly. It’s the sort of rationalization Jesuits get dunked for.

        That’s right. Warning the enemy is treason. Telling the enemy that you will warn him is not treason at all, in any way.

        How is this even slightly difficult to understand? How is it not completely obvious to you that there is a huge difference between doing something and saying you’ll do it?

        Let alone saying you’ll do it in some unthinkable hypothetical. But even if it were thinkable, or even likely, saying you’ll do something is still not tantamount to doing it. Words are cheap.

          Juris Doctor Doom in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2025 at 9:35 am

          This is beyond stupid. specially since you attribute Milley’s motive to be essentially silly, since Trump “won’t do this.” So why did Milley make the promise, the warning, to begin with?

          There is a difference between actually killing someone, and threatening to do so, but they are both crimes.

          MiIlley, as a US General, has no loyalty or duty to advise “an enemy” as you call them, of anything. He serves at the direction of the President (Chief Executive Officer). He made a promise, a concession, to an enemy that “should” his CIC do X thing, Milley will do Y thing to the benefit of his enemy. “I will sell out my nation’s security when/if x occurs. I will shoot my CIC if X occurs, to your benefit.” That’s cheap? At no time are we even discussing the US interest and national security in this arrangement. What authority did he have to do that, to supersede his CIC? A personal whim? On what earth is that not treasonous? It also begs the question as to how many other times he’s done something similar.

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 9:37 am

      Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit.

      You defend the indefensible. Always.

        Bullshit. I defend the truth. Always. You don’t give a shit about the truth. You just want to attack your enemies, always, regardless of what the truth might be. You check whose ox is gored, and that is a disgusting practice.

      The Beef in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 12:21 pm

      Milhouse, You need to change your name. How about outhouse? Nineteen thumbs down shows you don’t have many friends.

        Milhouse in reply to The Beef. | January 21, 2025 at 8:29 am

        Nineteen thumbs down just shows that there are a lot of vindictive hate-filled dishonest idiots here.

          Juris Doctor Doom in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2025 at 10:10 am

          No, what you do is swoop in to tell people what they CAN’T do, never what they can. You shoot down their suggestion, opinion, approach, without offering a counter to achieve the result they want. You only pooh pooh their goal. You gatekeep.

          For example, if the pardon power is plenary, and as expansive as you argue, then a President can self-pardon. And yet, this isn’t a matter of settled law, so the power is not as plenary or expansive as is claimed, and is yet subject to review by the courts, who will INTERPRET the Constitution (which doesn’t exactly mean honoring what is says expressly.) For example, SCOTUS never has been called upon to judge the validity of an open pardon, like the Nixon pardon or Biden’s pardons. So it may be presumed legal, but that kinda depends on a challenge being filed to it, and the Justices reading the Constitution.

      Alex deWynter in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 2:14 pm

      2-part question: Biden’s pardon protects Milley from being prosecuted for federal crimes. But, while retired, he is a commissioned officer in the US military. Can he be court-martialed? Or is there some other discipline the Commander in Chief can impose?

      Y’know…simply dismissing in contrarian emotive fashion, does not a credible opining make. Declarative statements of ‘no’ are rather comical, though.

      “There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.”

      So yes, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/ asserts that pardons are an admission of guilt.

      CaptTee in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2025 at 4:33 pm

      In principle I agree, but aren’t you practicing mind reading?

I can’t find anything about what he pardoned. Was it another “all crimes committed between two dates”, like the one Ford gave Nixon or the one he gave Hunter? Or was it for specific crimes, like most pardons in US history?

    mailman in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 7:49 am

    The reason is covered under the Democrat “its what ever we feel like” clause.

    Juris Doctor Doom in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 9:52 am

    If the pardon power is broad and unassailable, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2025 at 6:05 pm

    I saw it described as a pre-emptive “blanket” pardon, so I am thinking anything after XX/XX/XX date. But I can’t find any specifics either.

    Sultan in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2025 at 10:11 am

    The fact that other Presidents have purported to grant “pre-emptive pardons” for unspecified and uncharged offenses, real or imaginary, is irrelevant to the question whether such “pre-emptive pardons” are valid under the Constitution or are simply grants of immunity from prosecution, which I do not believe a President can grant.

The J6 committee and Milley will forever have felon etched next to their names.

    Milhouse in reply to TimMc. | January 20, 2025 at 7:58 am

    Etched where? In some quarters Trump will have that etched next to his name, and not just for the garbage case in NY but primarily for the federal cases that were dropped, and the GA case that’s about to be dropped. They won’t believe he’s innocent, but their beliefs have nothing to do with reality.

But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong and in fact have done the right thing and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.

Trump should totally steal that for when he pardons all the J6 protesters.

Given that “the lights are on, but nobody’s home”, I have to question the validity of these pardons – and everything else that “Biden” has supposedly done.

If he lack mental capacity, are the pardon’s valid? Asking for a friend.

He has until noon to pardon himself.

    Ghostrider in reply to NotCoach. | January 20, 2025 at 8:32 am

    Doesn’t Joe have SCOTUS’s Presidential Immunity ruling in his favor?

      NotCoach in reply to Ghostrider. | January 20, 2025 at 8:46 am

      Not for the bribes and kickbacks he received before he was president.

        Milhouse in reply to NotCoach. | January 21, 2025 at 8:58 am

        Not even for bribes and kickbacks as president, if he got any. Bribes and kickbacks are not official acts. They’re not even in the outer perimeter of possible official acts. That’s why congressmen can be prosecuted for accepting bribes, despite their immunity.

        Now just as a congressman can only be prosecuted for soliciting and accepting the bribe, but not for acting as he was paid to do, because that is an official act, the same is true for a president. if he’s paid to do something and does it, he can’t be prosecuted for doing it but only for having solicited and accepted the bribe.

How are preemptive pardons issued and signed Joe Biden, a lame duck US President, who was determined to be too (senile) or mentally and physically deficient to stand trial, deemed to be valid? Can they legally be reversed?

When so many have done so much for so long it’s difficult to identify everyone who needs a pardon. Maybe Biden could just issue a few pardons for John Doe.

1) You don’t need to be pardoned for crimes you did not commit, therefore I assume all are guilty.

2) The DOJ should prosecute all of them anyway – the process is the punishment (see: R. Giuliani).

3) The ringleaders of this cabal have not been pardoned (nor should they be). Obama and Biden need to be hauled into a courtroom and prosecuted for their crimes.

4) It’s uncanny how accurate my conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.

5) Exercising my 1st amendment rights here: FJB.

    TargaGTS in reply to Peter Moss. | January 20, 2025 at 9:10 am

    Unfortunately, because they now have pardons in their hands, the moment an indictment was handed down, their lawyers would file those pardons with the DC District Court judge and the case would be immediately dismissed with prejudice. Now, if it were a Republican handing that pardon to the judge, in that particular District – which is littered with some of the worst, most partisan judges in the country – they would drag it out with weeks or months of hearings and some, like that judge who still initially refused to dismiss the Flynn case even though Trump pardoned him, would respond similarly, perhaps forcing the DC Circuit to get involved, which would cost the defendants even more money. But, Democrats have home-field advantage in the District of Columbia.

      Peter Moss in reply to TargaGTS. | January 20, 2025 at 10:00 am

      🤷‍♂️

      Guy can dream, can’t he?

      To me this is an abuse of authority for which Biden should receive scorn.

      But…

      Trump 2.0 > Bogus pardons.

      If that’s the deal on the table, I’m taking it.

      amatuerwrangler in reply to TargaGTS. | January 20, 2025 at 10:47 am

      Yes… However, The original filings would be “chapter and verse” of all the wrongdoings, the run-up to them and all the co-conspirators named. When this public document hits the courthouse, certified copies should appear on X and elsewhere so the public can read for themselves what was done and what the former President thought should be excused in the name of politics.

      The Dems have used the Court of Public Opinion over the past 8 years, its time they got their turn at the defense table…. Its time for the political version of burned crops and salted fields.

Trump should pardon Nancy for being a drunk.

Of all those pardons issued, the most dangerous to the future of the country – by a very wide margin – is the one he gave Milley. Milley’s seditious – possibly treasonous – behavior is the most dangerous. This country has survived for as long as it has because of the First Principles of Consent of the Governed and Civilian Control of the Military. Milley upended both those principles when he actively worked with an adversarial nation to undermine the Commander-in-Chief. With Milley avoiding any punishment for those actions, it will invite further, probably even worse action in the future.

These pardons amount to a final attempt at cover-up by the Biden Administration. I doubt that many (any?) of these people would have convicted.

But remember that the process is the punishment. These pardons prevent the legal process from even starting. So there will be no discovery, no huge legal bills, less trampling on reputation.

The biggest travesty to me is the pardon of Fauci, who funded the Chinese to carry out gain-of-function research. In my experience, the only reason for doing that research is to develop biological weapons. In short, he was funding our enemy to develop biological weapons that could (and did) harm the US. Now there are fewer mechanisms to find out what was going on in the NIH/CDC.

    henrybowman in reply to kelly_3406. | January 20, 2025 at 4:19 pm

    So you don’t use a legal process. You hold legislative hearings and force these people to testify. They either have to perjure themselves or admit their actions. In the latter case, you’ve ruined their legacy and career; in the former you now have a new crime not subject to the old pardon.

E Howard Hunt | January 20, 2025 at 8:57 am

Every legal article I’ve read about the presidential pardon power says it is vast, includes preemption, and is supported by precedent. I would love to see these pardons tested in court. Generally, common sense trumps legalism when core principles are violated and absurd actions taken. For example, what if Biden decided to issue preemptive federal pardons to every citizen/resident of the United States for the period between January 1, 1919 and January 20, 2025? Would that survive a court challenge?

buckeyeminuteman | January 20, 2025 at 8:58 am

Is a preemptive pardon even legal, or constitutional? I’m no legal beagle but this seems wrong and should not be held up in federal courts.
Trump should just go ahead and investigate and charge them. Let them scream and run through appeals courts all the way to SCOTUS. At least that way we get a definitive yes or no on the constitutionality of this.

    Yes, preemptive pardons have been part of our legal tradition for literally centuries, going back even earlier than the Republic, and the courts have repeatedly said they are valid.

    George Washington issued a blanket preemptive pardon, and no one protested. That itself is sufficient to prove it.

We knew it was coming, as Garland said guess they just admitted guilt.
Fauci will get his punishment when he meets God for his crime against humanity.

Did the killer of Ashley Babbitt testify before the House committee and is now off the hook, as a “DC Metropolitan Police Officer”? If he is off the hook, does a pardon protect him from a civil suit?

I have exactly the same question as buckeyeminuteman. How can you be pardoned for something for which you have not been at least charged?

Can anyone here give a lawyer’s opinion on this?

I would at least like to see this theory of “just in case he/she/they/it did something/anything I am pardoning them” challenged in court,

    Paula in reply to Hodge. | January 20, 2025 at 9:16 am

    Milhouse thinks everything Biden did is fine. But don’t worry, as soon as Trump is sworn in Milhouse will be back to his old fault finding self.

    henrybowman in reply to Hodge. | January 20, 2025 at 4:21 pm

    Hey, I recognize that! It’s what Britain called the “double O” license.

    Milhouse in reply to Hodge. | January 21, 2025 at 9:12 am

    In all the many centuries that the pardon power has existed, including in the UK pre-revolution (which our courts have explicitly recognized as valid precedent in the USA) it has NEVER been a requirement that the offense have been charged. Never.

    And the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that ” the term being generic necessarily includes every species of pardon, individual as well as general, conditional as well as absolute. […] it is equally within his prerogative to extend it so as to include a whole class of offenders—to interpose this act of clemency before trial or conviction; and not merely to take away the penalty, but to forgive and obliterate the offence.”

The United States legal system traditionally has had a presumption of innocence, however, this President infers a presumption of guilt for a whole host of suspects. Another question, given the dementia of Biden, who is really making the decision to issue pardons to these miscreants?

    Milhouse in reply to Romey. | January 21, 2025 at 9:15 am

    No, he doesn’t presume guilt. The statement explicitly says that he’s afraid these innocent people will be prosecuted by a vindictive Trump administration, just for the sake of harassing them.

    Biden would of course know all about that, because his administration pioneered that very thing. For instance all the bullshit charges against Trump, as well as most of the J6 charges. He’s just afraid Trump will follow his example.

    Also, of course, many of these people are NOT innocent, Biden just says they are.

Suburban Farm Guy | January 20, 2025 at 9:23 am

“… Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals …”

That would be YOU, and the hallmark of your stolen term, Mr. Biden. Why did you do exactly that?

Civil War II it sounds like.

The pardon power clearly needs to be circumscribed in a new Con amendment.

Question: could Fauci be prosecuted under state law? I don’t mean hypothetically. I mean practically, under what state law? What would the crime be?

StillNeedToDrainTheSwamp | January 20, 2025 at 9:38 am

This is the Biden legacy.

Here is a list of individuals who were preemptively pardoned by U.S. Presidents since 1900, focusing on cases where specific individuals were named:

Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909)
No records of preemptive pardons issued during this presidency.

William Howard Taft (1909–1913)
No known instances of preemptive pardons.

Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921)
Eugene V. Debs (1918): Although not a preemptive pardon, Wilson commuted Debs’ sentence for his opposition to World War I. Not technically preemptive, but notable in pardon history.

Warren G. Harding (1921–1923)
No records of preemptive pardons.

Calvin Coolidge (1923–1929)
No records of preemptive pardons.

Herbert Hoover (1929–1933)
No records of preemptive pardons.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945)
No widely documented preemptive pardons.

Harry S. Truman (1945–1953)
No widely documented preemptive pardons.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1961)
No widely documented preemptive pardons.

John F. Kennedy (1961–1963)
No records of preemptive pardons.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969)
No records of preemptive pardons.

Richard Nixon (1969–1974)
No records of preemptive pardons (though he was later a recipient).

Gerald Ford (1974–1977)
Richard Nixon (1974): Pardoned for any crimes he may have committed during his presidency.

Jimmy Carter (1977–1981)
Vietnam War Draft Evaders (1977): Blanket pardon; no specific names listed.

Ronald Reagan (1981–1989)
No records of preemptive pardons.

George H.W. Bush (1989–1993)
Armand Hammer (1989): Pardoned for campaign finance violations.
Caspar Weinberger and Others (1992): Preemptive pardons in the Iran-Contra affair:
Caspar Weinberger
Elliott Abrams
Robert McFarlane
Clair George
Alan Fiers
Duane Clarridge

Bill Clinton (1993–2001)
Marc Rich (2001): Pardoned for tax evasion and other charges before trial.

George W. Bush (2001–2009)
No known preemptive pardons.

Barack Obama (2009–2017)
No known preemptive pardons.

Donald Trump (2017–2021)
No known preemptive pardons.

Joe Biden (2021–2025)
Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley, and members of the January 6 Committee (2025, reported): Preemptive pardons issued for potential politically motivated prosecutions.

This list includes known preemptive pardons with individuals explicitly named.

    IIRC, Marc Rich had at least been indicted, right? His criminal liability wasn’t theoretical. He was a fugitive from justice, not unlike Roman Polanski. I think the only reason he wasn’t extradited by the EU is tax crimes aren’t viewed favorably for extradition; countries generally won’t extradite someone because of back-taxes. Even Bill Clinton – one of the worst, most crooked presidents in history – didn’t pull the BS Biden just pulled.

    Don’t forget Hunter and James.

BigRosieGreenbaum | January 20, 2025 at 9:41 am

IDK, if Trump is such a threat to democracy, then he could ignore the pardons. Biden or whoever is issuing these pardons is full of it. It looks like he just waived his magic pardon wand on his goons. Wonder if he’ll pardon himself and his family?
Trump better issue blanket pardons for the J6ers.

“Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals’

Helotes the Leftist projection down perfectly

Great. Subpoena them, put them under oath.

They have no 5th Amendment right o not answer. If they repeat the same lies, immediately prosecute them for perjury.

If they ignore the subpoena, throw them in jail just like Bannon.

Learn to play this game, Republicans.

    George S in reply to Olinser. | January 20, 2025 at 11:03 am

    They’ll ignore the subpoena. The Congress will then put in a criminal referral to the DoJ. The DoJ will inform Congress they are pardoned for any crimes related to what you are investigating and therefore .the referral is moot.

      Olinser in reply to George S. | January 20, 2025 at 11:48 am

      That’s not how a subpeona works. A subpeona does not HAVE to be ‘investigating crimes’, people are subpeonaed to testify on various things all the time. Witnesses in civil trials are put under subpeona all the time.

      A Congressional subpoena is an order to sit in front of Congress on a specific date and answer questions. That’s it.

      Ignoring a subpoena is a crime.

        henrybowman in reply to Olinser. | January 20, 2025 at 4:31 pm

        Right. In fact, there is one subpoena that gives Libertarians fits, because it is a clear use of force against the innocent but there seems to be no way to run a justice system without it: the power to subpoena otherwise-uninvolved witnesses to testify for the defense. It’s a Sixth Amendment right. There is absolutely no imputation of guilt associated.

Juris Doctor Doom | January 20, 2025 at 10:00 am

“How can you be pardoned for something for which you have not been at least charged?” This is the pivotal question, and I think the viability of the presidential pardon power will be curtailed over it. It’s one thing to pardon someone who is actively being investigated, or tried, or serving time, or after release from sentence for defined crimes or actions. It’s wholly another to simply grant an all-encompassing form of immunity for all Federal crimes from the day your dropped from your mama’s uterus to the present (or even the future!) Hence, why Trump should today, before he eats lunch, pardon as many people as he can think of – Jan 6ers, Rudy, Dread Pirate Roberts, all his donors, all his voters, his family, his golf course ground crew, I mean everyone. And then have both his and Biden’s legally challenged. All it takes is a majority of SCOTUS justices to decide to limit the power, and “abracadabra!” legal magic is cast to change reality. Don’t let any lawyer tell ya it can’t be done. I’ve seen a lot of crazier sh!t get done in the past 10 years.

    OwenKellogg-Engineer in reply to Juris Doctor Doom. | January 20, 2025 at 11:14 am

    It’s all covered in the Minority Report, doncha know.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Juris Doctor Doom. | January 20, 2025 at 5:12 pm

    Give it a few hours, and Milquetoast will arrive to much anticipated fanfare that he is right and you are wrong, with absolutely no basis in fact other than he is a narcissist who believes everything that springs forth from his keyboard is Holy Gospel.

    Pardons can’t cover future offenses. A pardon is an instant, not a permanent.

      Juris Doctor Doom in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2025 at 9:49 am

      And yet, it broadly covers “offenses” that are not yet discovered, such as from 2014 to the present. So it can’t protect them from a crime they commit tomorrow, but it can protect them from any crime discovered tomorrow. Hence, Biden’s precautionary pardons to Milley, Fauci et al “just in case” an offense is discovered in the future as part of Trump’s revenge. And again, it is less a pardon than is is amnesty or immunity, because they don’t identify any crime or even a scope of crime. And I sincerely hope Trump exercises the very boundary of that power.

At some point SCOTUS may weigh in
For reasons articulated in Dobbs, they might rule that there is nothing in the founding that allows for a presidential pardon to be used as a tool to facilitate a premeditated crime spree

-NJ incarcerates certain sex offenders long beyond their sentence via civil commitment

    Juris Doctor Doom in reply to rduke007. | January 20, 2025 at 11:42 am

    SCOTUS only weighs in if they are legally challenged. Now would be a good time.

    Alex deWynter in reply to rduke007. | January 21, 2025 at 9:21 am

    A pardon can’t facilitate premeditated crime spree. It can only facilitate covering up a premeditated crime spree that has already occurred.

He didn’t pardon Mayorkus, Garland or the kenyan

    TargaGTS in reply to rduke007. | January 20, 2025 at 10:14 am

    Mayorkas is probably the only one with any real exposure (several obvious counts of lying to Congress). Attorneys General enjoy incredibly robust immunity shields. It’s practically impossible to prosecute a federal lawyer in this country for the prosecutorial decisions he made or didn’t make. I suspect Obama doesn’t have any real fear of being prosecuted either.

      Paula in reply to TargaGTS. | January 20, 2025 at 11:45 am

      Obama’s only fear is that they might find his real birth certificate. At least that what Loretta Fuddy said just before she died in a mysterious plane crash.

      NTSB determined that everyone on the plane had an adult life vest except Fuddy. She was wearing an infant life vest that only partially inflated and one of two cartridges in the vest was punctured and empty. “Just pure bad luck,” Obama said.

    Yet. He – or his puppeteers – still have an hour and a half.

Don’t need a pardon if there was no crime

    henrybowman in reply to 2smartforlibs. | January 20, 2025 at 4:35 pm

    But you have to take into account Democrat projection.
    They already know you can arrange to convict people of made-up crimes, because they did it four times to Trump.
    Or would have, if it hadn’t been for you meddling voters.

One final, obnoxious and intemperate demonstration and admission of the brazen lawlessness, corruption and subversion of the wretched Biden-Harris regime and its vile apparatchiks.

I did not/have not seen any pardons for Biden’s brother or other family members involved in all the money laundering. Maybe I missed it ?
Of course, he has until noon, right?

No surprise the crooked bastard would pardon his fellow traitors.

If it could be proven that Biden was privy to shenanigans committed by any of these people, could his pardons be vacated, since they were issued in order to cover up a conspiracy?

How is it possible to pardon somebody for a crime for which they have not been charged?

Should not this be challenged for SCOTUS to decide, in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial system?

    Milhouse in reply to smooth. | January 21, 2025 at 9:27 am

    That has always been possible, and has never been challenged. There has never been any question about it.

If I was advising Trump, I would send the message to Milley that if he accepts the pardon, the Secretary of the Army will be directed to reduce him in rank on the retired list to the last rank at which he performed acceptably with the corresponding reduction in retired pay. It would like knock him down a star, not cause a hiccup in what Milley gets for board seats and speaking fees, but it would send a message that generals are not above being held accountable.

    OwenKellogg-Engineer in reply to Old Soldier. | January 20, 2025 at 11:15 am

    ^^ This

    TargaGTS in reply to Old Soldier. | January 20, 2025 at 11:23 am

    This might actually be allowable in spite of that pardon. I would be curious to hear from an experienced JAG officer. Parsons generally end all criminal penalties. But, pardons don’t – can’t – end CIVIL penalties. Unlike enlisted men who can be reduced at court-martial, officers can’t. The only way to reduce an officer is through an administrative process called a reduction board. It’s not a criminal process, it’s a CIVIL process. Reduction boards are rarely used. If you’ve erred enough to be reduced, you’re generally just dismissed as an officer. But, the process is there and Milley’s conduct clearly warrants it, IMHO.

    Trump could – and should – also strip Milley of his security clearance, which would make him worthless to any corporate board.

Well, it looks like I should have hit the books for pressing “submit”– SECDEF is the appropriate authority, not SECARMY.

If you want a solid look at Democratic legal reasoning, please take a squint at this. Lawyer here blames Trump for the necessity of the pardons.

https://verdict.justia.com/2025/01/20/bidens-preemptive-pardons-are-an-unprecedented-vote-of-no-confidence-in-the-new-administration?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

    Juris Doctor Doom in reply to Titan28. | January 20, 2025 at 11:44 am

    Fine. Have Trump blame Biden for the necessity of HIS pardon’s he’ll issue forthwith. Steer into the skid.

Whoa. Fauci’s pardon goes all the way back to 2014. Wut?

Are they all like that?

    TargaGTS in reply to TargaGTS. | January 20, 2025 at 11:46 am

    Some more insight here from Hans Mahncle…

    The fact that Fauci’s pardon specifically and explicitly addresses his Covid-related offenses, while being backdated to 2014—the year the gain-of-function ban took effect, which Fauci circumvented by outsourcing experiments to China—speaks volumes as to what this is really about.

    https://x.com/HansMahncke/status/1881374058161594846

    Olinser in reply to TargaGTS. | January 20, 2025 at 1:23 pm

    Yes. The statue of limitations for the bulk of federal crimes that aren’t violent is 5-10 years.

    This was so the media could try to con the rubes about, ‘well it wasn’t a blanket pardon FOREVER, it covered only a specific period of time!’

    Functionally it makes them immune to all federal investigation because none of them have committed crimes that are still prosecutable at this point.

      Alex deWynter in reply to Olinser. | January 21, 2025 at 9:25 am

      They can still be investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted for crimes which occurred after the end of the period covered by the pardon.

Oh it gets even worse.

Now he just pre-emptively pardoned half his freaking family.

James Biden
Francis Biden
Sara Biden
Valerie Biden Owens
John Owens

This is a JOKE.

I don’t want to hear ONEFUCKINGWORD about the J6 pardons.

The future “Pardon Me” room at the Joe Biden Presidential Library and Ice Cream shop just got alot bigger. Way to go Big Guy!

This is not a legal issue, it’s a reputational issue. A preemptive pardon has no more weight in the public mind than claiming that DJT is a “convicted felon”. Biden did no favors to those receiving preemptive pardons: they can’t be prosecuted, but they sure as hell can be accused. There will be enough crusaders filing FOIA requests for evidence suppressed by the Biden administration to generate sensational articles. Foreign governments seeking the goodwill of DJT will disgorge information about dealings with family and government players. The result will be the equivalent to grand jury hearings played out in the media. The “suspects” will have to either sue to stop it or just fade away to write their memoirs. Whatever they do, their reputations will suffer and they will be out in the cold for at least the next 4 years, more likely longer.

    Alex deWynter in reply to Mystified. | January 21, 2025 at 9:39 am

    There would need to be some care taken to avoid successful defamation lawsuits, but yes. Plus I doubt Fauci and most of the others acted alone, meaning there are co-conspirators, accomplices, aiders-and-abetters, etc. who are legally unprotected by these pardons. Not as gratifying as landing the big fish, but hey, they did wrong too (and now they can’t plea bargain by selling out their boss). And after all, the left has made a practice of going after everyone associated with Trump. Let’s see how they like it.

I hope in the instance of these three criminals and traitors, that someone pursues these pardons in the legal system.

SeekingRationalThought | January 21, 2025 at 6:12 pm

I see Fauci was licking his lips in this picture. He must have been looking forward to fava beans and a nice chianti to go along with his dinner of virus and abused power that evening. The man would be a joke if his ego and greed hadn’t led to so many deaths.