How Biden’s Pardons Could Lead to His Own Unraveling
President Biden’s contemplation of issuing preemptive pardons could upend the entire landscape of accountability, possibly entangling him in greater legal danger rather than offering the protection he may anticipate. By pardoning everyone allegedly involved in his influence-peddling activities — including his brother Jim Biden, as well as key figures in international dealings from his vice-presidential days — and those instrumental in orchestrating the legal onslaught against Donald Trump, such as Attorney General Merrick Garland, Special Counsel Jack Smith, NYC DA Alvin Bragg, acting Justice Merchan, and Fani Willis, Biden could inadvertently unravel his own carefully built defenses. What may appear as a comprehensive insurance policy could, in fact, result in disastrous unintended consequences, converting loyal allies into fragile liabilities.
Allegations of Influence Peddling: Biden’s Network at Risk
Accusations of influence-peddling against Biden have loomed for years, drawing attention to his engagements with foreign actors, particularly in Ukraine and China. The available evidence — ranging from emails to bank records — paints a picture that has continued to raise eyebrows. Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, remains emblematic of these concerns, earning him upwards of $50,000 per month despite lacking relevant experience. This lucrative position prompted skepticism, even from members of the Obama administration, about what exactly was being purchased. Allegedly, President Biden went so far as to issue a preemptive pardon covering Hunter’s tenure at Burisma, all while he himself played a diplomatic role in Ukraine. Similar patterns emerge in Biden’s connections to Chinese business interests, including references to “the big guy” in leaked communications. Issuing pardons to those enmeshed in these dealings, including his brother Jim Biden, could amplify these allegations rather than dispel them, turning whispers of scandal into roars of controversy.
The Lawfare Against Trump: Legal Maneuvering and the Risk of Backfire
Over recent years, legal action has become a sharp weapon used against former President Donald Trump. Prosecutors such as Jack Smith, Fani Willis, and Alvin Bragg have embarked on a coordinated effort to undermine Trump’s re-election prospects. To many, this represents a brazen abuse of power, using the justice system to sideline political opposition. The role of Matthew Colangelo, previously a senior official at the U.S. Attorney General’s office who transitioned into a line prosecutor at the NYC DA’s office specifically to handle Trump-related cases, serves as a clear example of the extent of this coordination. The intricacy of this legal assault cannot simply be undone with a presidential pardon, making the implications far more complex. Moreover, reports indicate that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, both associated with the Fulton County DA’s office, met with White House lawyers to discuss the strategy surrounding the Georgia RICO cases against Trump. Adding to this picture, the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General has received credible allegations of misconduct by members of Jack Smith’s team, but the lack of any investigation has raised serious concerns. Should Biden move forward with preemptive pardons for these individuals, he might think he’s insulating them from retribution. However, in doing so, he would strip them of a key protection — their ability to plead the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment: A Double-Edged Sword
A major risk of issuing preemptive pardons lies in eliminating Fifth Amendment protections. The Burdick v. United States (1915) Supreme Court ruling establishes that once pardoned, individuals cannot invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination since they no longer face jeopardy over those pardoned actions. This would leave previously shielded allies, such as Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, or Fani Willis, vulnerable to subpoenas that could compel them to testify about the nature and motivations of their actions. If forced to testify truthfully or risk perjury or obstruction charges, these individuals might find themselves unable to avoid spilling secrets that could ultimately damage Biden himself. What was meant as a strategic move to protect Biden’s network could transform it into a vulnerability, leaving these once-protected figures exposed and forcing them into positions that compromise the very protection Biden aimed to secure.
Even with immunity from prosecution for past actions, those who are pardoned remain subject to charges if they lie under oath or refuse to cooperate. Immunity is not impunity, and this uncomfortable truth could easily turn Biden’s closest allies into the weakest links in his political armor.
Biden’s Self-Pardon: A Controversial Last Resort
The broader implications of these preemptive pardons raise the question of whether Biden would consider pardoning himself. The concept of a self-pardon remains legally murky, fraught with untested constitutional questions. While some legal scholars argue that a self-pardon would be invalid on the grounds that no one can be their own judge, others see the absence of explicit restrictions on the president’s pardon power as allowing for such a move. Should Biden take this route, he would likely set off an unprecedented constitutional crisis, pushing the Supreme Court into the center of an unprecedented confrontation. The ensuing spectacle alone could permanently taint Biden’s presidency, regardless of the final outcome.
Yet, there exists a more cunning alternative. During his last medical procedure, Biden briefly transferred presidential powers to Vice President Kamala Harris under Section 3 of the 25th Amendment. This constitutional provision allows a president to declare themselves temporarily unable to perform their duties, enabling the vice president to assume control. Imagine Biden undergoing another routine medical procedure, invoking the 25th Amendment, and allowing Harris to assume presidential powers long enough to issue a pardon for Biden himself. This maneuver would be constitutionally permissible and would provide Biden plausible deniability. There are historical precedents for such temporary transfers: President Ronald Reagan did it in 1985 when he underwent surgery, as did George W. Bush on two occasions when Dick Cheney temporarily took over as Acting President. Vice President Harris has also already taken on these responsibilities during one of Biden’s previous medical procedures.
Conclusion
In pursuing preemptive pardons, President Biden could face significant unintended consequences. These pardons might initially seem like an effective measure to protect his allies and secure his position, but they could just as easily unravel his intricate web of influence. The elimination of Fifth Amendment protections would compel his closest confidants to testify, potentially exposing Biden’s own misdeeds. If forced into a corner, Biden might weigh the drastic option of a self-pardon, setting off a constitutional battle, or opt for a temporary transfer of power to Vice President Harris to secure his own pardon. Both paths are fraught with risks and uncertainties. Ultimately, the move towards preemptive pardons could serve as a cautionary tale of overreaching, leaving Biden more vulnerable than he ever anticipated.
If you don’t already, please follow me on 𝕏 at https://x.com/amuse or substack.
