Biden's Dilemma: Balancing Preemptive Pardons and Political Retribution in the Face of Trump and Patel's Threats

Preview
Preview
President Biden faces a complex and unprecedented situation regarding pardons, especially in light of the incoming administration led by President-elect Donald Trump and his choice for FBI director, Kash Patel. The concerns are twofold: protecting individuals who might be targeted by Trump and Patel for political retribution, and addressing the broader implications of issuing preemptive pardons.

Protecting Individuals from Political Retribution

Trump's and Patel's Targets:
Trump and Patel have made it clear that they intend to use the Department of Justice and the FBI to target political opponents. This includes individuals like former Rep. Liz Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci, special counsel Jack Smith, Sen.-elect Adam Schiff, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Patel's list also includes former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, Trump’s former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Nature of the Threat:
The threat is not just hypothetical. Trump has a history of using legal means to intimidate and retaliate against those who oppose him. As president-elect, he has the power to make good on his threats, which include arrests, home searches, and legal harassment. This could lead to significant personal and professional consequences for those targeted, even if they are ultimately exonerated.

Preemptive Pardons: A Necessary Countermeasure

Constitutional and Precedential Considerations:
The Constitution grants the president broad pardon powers, but preemptive pardons—those issued to protect individuals from future, uncharged crimes—are unprecedented. Some legal experts argue that such pardons might be unconstitutional because they are not issued for specific past convictions. However, given the unique nature of the threat posed by Trump and Patel, the argument for preemptive pardons is strong. They are seen as a necessary safeguard against what could be the greatest mass miscarriage of justice in American history.
Political and Ethical Implications:
Issuing broad, preemptive pardons risks setting a dangerous precedent that future presidents might exploit. However, given the extraordinary circumstances, this risk might be justified to protect the integrity of the justice system and prevent the persecution of innocent individuals. The alternative—allowing political retribution to proceed unchecked—poses an even greater threat to democratic norms and the rule of law.

Conclusion

President Biden must weigh the immediate need to protect individuals from political retribution against the long-term implications of issuing preemptive pardons. While the decision is fraught with legal, ethical, and political challenges, the unprecedented nature of the threat posed by Trump and Patel may necessitate unprecedented actions to safeguard the integrity of the justice system and protect those who might be unjustly targeted.