Biden Pardons Family

It was a busy eleventh hour.

Via ABC News: President Biden pardons family members in final minutes of presidency.

“My family has been subjected to unrelenting attacks and threats, motivated solely by a desire to hurt me — the worst kind of partisan politics,” Biden wrote in a statement. “Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe these attacks will end.”

“That is why I am exercising my power under the Constitution to pardon James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden,” he continued. “The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that they engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.”

The pardon itself can be found here.

James Joyner and Matt Bernius have already written several posts about the various preemptive pardons, and I am going to join Matt, to the chagrin of many readers, and agree this is a terrible idea.*

This is just confirmation that justice derives not from abstract principles, but instead flows from power. Moreover, justice is partisan. This will deepen cynicism in the country and fuel any number of Trump’s narratives. It makes it all the harder to criticize Trump’s approach to the presidency.

I will add that I am actually highly sympathetic to the goals here. I understand he is trying to protect people who might have been unjustly targeted.

I expect exactly four years from now we will see quite the flurry of pardons, and I expect that the readership will not be too happy when it happens. And yes, I realize that Trump might have done it anyway, but it is going to be awfully hard to get the public to be scandalized by it when it happens.

I was already not the biggest fan of the pardon power, and now I really would like to see substantial reforms, to include at least some kind of independent assessment with DoJ. But that is likely just dreaming on my part.

More on this, I expect, as time goes on.


*Update: I will note that I am not unsympathetic to James’ position that, “While unprecedented and unseemly, it is, alas, almost certainly the right thing to do. The incoming President has vowed revenge on these people and, as Biden implies, simply having to defend oneself against scurrilous charges can be ruinous.” I might have been more persuadable before the blanket family pardons came out.

FILED UNDER: Law and the Courts, US Politics, ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Matt Bernius says:

    This is just confirmation that justice derives not form abstract principles, but instead flows from power. Moreover, justice is partisan. This will deepen cynicism in the country and fuel any number of Trump’s narratives. It makes it all the harder to criticize Trump’s approach to the presidency.

    Cosign 100%

    5
  2. MarkedMan says:

    The equating of these pardons with Trumps past and future ones is ridiculous. The reason actions are taken matter. The fact that deluded and degenerate MAGA’s will say “I told you so”, well WGAF? Why on earth should that factor into anything?

    7
  3. @MarkedMan: Because we are talking here about mass behavior, which is driven very much by mass perception.

    And because politics and political outcomes are shaped by norms. Norms are based on what people perceive to be normal behavior. Biden is helping to legitimize Trump’s claims about politicized justice and is making these kinds of personalized usages of power normal.

    He is saying that all of this is about power and who has it. This is helping us down Trump’s autocratic road.

    And while I realize there is a certain kind of MAGA voter for whom their minds are made up, that’s not the problem. The problem is the marginal Trump voters who just see their sticking with Trump as necessary.

    It is just another way that GOP voters can tell themselves “all politicians do it” so why should I care that Trump does X, Y, or Z?

    4
  4. Liberal Capitalists says:

    Still, if you see the out-of-control car tearing down the road right at your family, would you not pull them out of the way to safety?

    Discussions against a preemptive pardon is pearl-clutching when you know that non-fact-based vindictive idiots are now in power.

    11
  5. @Liberal Capitalists: I think that accusations of “pearl-clutching” are condescending, to be honest.

    I would remind everyone that I have been a forthright critic of Trump and a defender of American democracy. I think my views on this pardon business should at least be evaluated in that context.

    I will say, in regards to family-saving, I was more sympathetic to the Hunter pardon on that count, but am less so here (although I was not in favor of that move, either).

    3
  6. @Steven L. Taylor:

    I would remind everyone that I have been a forthright critic of Trump and a defender of American democracy. I think my views on this pardon business should at least be evaluated in that context.

    And to be clear: I am not saying that people should agree with me or that they shouldn’t criticize my position. But I would appreciate my position being taken in the context of years and years and years of nearly daily considering this general topic.

    4
  7. Crusty Dem says:

    As an American, I dislike seeing preemptive pardons.

    As a father and husband, I do not see how anyone in a similar situation would not do exactly what Biden has done here.

    You can hope for the justice system to be a force for good or you can recognize that the people taking charge of the government have both a history and intent of weaponizing the justice department.

    It’s all well and good to complain about norms when you don’t have to watch your loved ones be victims to their destruction.

    12
  8. @Crusty Dem:

    It’s all well and good to complain about norms when you don’t have to watch your loved ones be victims to their destruction.

    This is, of course, a very strong position and I thoroughly understand it.

    However, if Governor Newsom had diverted resources to specifically save his family/friends/associates from the fires without doing so for others, or in some abuse of his office, we would both understand the impulse but also see the problems with such a move.

    Maybe this is a costless abuse of power, but I have my doubts.

    7
  9. Bill Jempty says:

    A while back I half jokingly said Biden should pardon everyone.

    2
  10. Robert in SF says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:
    That analogy does not fit well, as I am sure you recognize.

    Fire is not malevolently and single minded in the pursuit of damage to one particular site or home. It is not driven by emotion and revenge. The Governor, in your analogy, pulls from a limited resource which punishes others by reducing the availability to help others.

    Trump is vengeful, petty, and his obsequious acolytes will be dogged in their pursuit. And pardons are not a zero sum game.

    President Biden faced unprecedented (to my limited knowledge?) circumstances based on statements and actions from the incoming President and historically by his Party that left him with limited options, so he had to do something he is empowered to do.

    The MAGA crowd have no standards on which they rest their decision making except to punish Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, in anyway they can. They don’t need or want excuses, and although they may try to justify future objections about Trump’s and the Republican party’s actions, that’s just so they get the visceral thrill of whataboutism. They don’t care ultimately and can turn any situation to their will, to provide whatever rationalization they want.

    Had President Biden not pardoned his family, and Trump does (will!), Democratic objections would have been met with praise to President Trumps bravery, courage, etc., and his willingness to protect his family and Brandon just cared about himself!

    They will spin, spin, spin, so I stopped worrying about it. I wish Biden had started way back when….Hell, I wish President Obama had done so when he was refused his Supreme Court nominee!

    9
  11. al Ameda says:

    Perhaps if Trump had not bulldozed all guardrails and norms the first time around I would feel differently about all of this pardon activity? But, things change in DC and Democrats are always the last ones to know.

    Pre-Trump Me: This is not how the Pardon process is supposed to work. If Trump goes after his ‘political enemies’ perhaps the Democratic Party can raise funds to cover legal expenses, etc …
    Apres-Trump Me: Let’s see, he’s threatened revenge and retribution against many ‘political enemies’ including Hunter Biden, Liz Cheney, General Milley, Anthony Fauci, and on and on, so yeah, there are damned good practical reasons to do this.

    Republicans have been running every red light since Obama nominated Garland to The Supreme Court. So I have no problem with Biden’s actions here. Will Republicans be angry and abuse the process when it’s their turn? Of course they will, but frankly, what else is new?

    9
  12. Michael Reynolds says:

    The ‘norms’ are gone. They were never very strong, papier maché guardrails, illusions we bought into until suddenly, they evaporated. The criminal in me always knew how weak they were, how easily ignored. I never believed they would matter in a crisis. Scared enough, you will kill. Hungry enough, you will cannibalize. When the cage with the hungry rat is bolted to your face, you will betray Julia.

    The surprising thing, surprising even to a cynic like me, is just how little it took. No face rats, just a pandemic, some pronouns and the high cost of eggs. That’s what it took to break the American people.

    We need to fight back. And when we fight back, I really don’t want to hear people moaning about norms. I have a possible explanation for the difference between Joyner, Taylor and Bernius: Joyner is a soldier.

    7
  13. @Robert in SF:

    That analogy does not fit well, as I am sure you recognize.

    I will readily agree it is a flawed analogy but will double down on the core notion. I can both see how one would seek to use one’s position of power to help one’s family, but also think that using power for personal benefit requires enhanced scrutiny.

    It may ultimately be true that the ends justify the means. But I still have concerns about the means.

    1
  14. @Michael Reynolds:

    I really don’t want to hear people moaning about norms

    It’s entirely possible I will be disappointing you at times.

    I have a possible explanation for the difference between Joyner, Taylor and Bernius: Joyner is a soldier.

    That’s a take, to be sure.

    I would note that James is usually the one taking flack for not getting agreeing with the commenters.

    5
  15. @Michael Reynolds: BTW: I am not sure if the pardons constitute fighting back. They seem more like a defensive position to me, if not actually avoiding a fight.

    4
  16. DK says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Exactly.

    “I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a-hole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad, and might even prove useful, or that he’s America’s Hitler.” – JD Vance, on Trump

    Norms are insufficient to defend oneself from a wannabe Hitleresque fascist.

    Trump shouldn’t have promised retribution or told John Kelly, “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had.” This kind of abnormal gutter politics makes norms-breaking defensive measures not only justifiable, but ethical and necessary — especially when legal.

    I expect exactly four years from now we will see quite the flurry of pardons, and I expect that the readership will not be too happy when it happens. And yes, I realize that Trump might have done it anyway, but it is going to be awfully hard to get the public to be scandalized by it when it happens.

    Bothsidesism is the default landing space of the lazy mind, but not all of “the public” is incapable of comparing and contrasting, a basic tenet of comprehension typically first taught in grade school. The types of people whose brains don’t work well enough for them to distinguish between first degree homicide and justifiable homicide in self-defense are mostly unreachable for Democrats right now.

    Similar presidential actions are not automatically identical, and yes, much if not most of the public is fully capable of weighing context and exculpatory evidence to make necessary distinctions. Trump still hasn’t won a majority, we’re not all lobotomy patients.

    2
  17. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:
    The commentariat, with some exceptions, are not people I’d expect to pull a trigger when a trigger needed pulling.

    IIRC, James was an artillery man. And an intelligent man. So at some point he came to grips with the possibility that would, however unintentionally, be killing women and children. It’s not ‘normal’ to kill people, even men in uniform on the other side, but I assume he did.

    That’s not to denigrate people who won’t kill, we all hope that’s most people. But most people are not much use in a fight. This is a fight. In a fight there is only one hard and fast rule: win. Every other ‘norm’ gets lip service, but in the end, you have to win. No points are awarded for obeying norms, and losing to someone who doesn’t.

    5
  18. Andy says:

    @MarkedMan:

    The equating of these pardons with Trumps past and future ones is ridiculous. The reason actions are taken matter. The fact that deluded and degenerate MAGA’s will say “I told you so”, well WGAF? Why on earth should that factor into anything?

    To add to what Stephen said, outside of the relatively small number of die-hard partisans, revealed preferences and reputation matter.

    As an example, one of the effective messages against the Harris campaign was showing the things she said in 2019 compared to today. The die-hard partisan only sees the huge difference as an inconvenience, but to the normie person, it raises legitimate questions about what she actually stands for.

    The same thing goes for Democrats as a whole. Sounding the alarm for years about concerns that Trump will use the pardon power for friends and relatives and then doing a 180 and defending Biden for breaking that norm when Trump had the chance and didn’t suggests that Democrats are just the other side of the coin to MAGA and don’t actually stand on principle. It’s not clear to me how this is supposed to help Democrats or how this is supposed to restrain Trump. It’s not clear to me how that is supposed to convince the marginal voter that Democrats really are the better party.

    Ultimately it’s a mistake to gauge one’s level of adherence to norms and principles based on what your opponent is doing or what you think they might do in a worst-case scenario. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways – you can’t claim to be the principled opposition and also claim that your abrogation of those principles is entirely legitimate because you think the opposition is (or will be) worse.

    I would also tie this into something I know more about, which is the rules and norms of warfare. Despite the fact that America’s enemies rarely adhere to the rules and norms of warfare, we continue to do so. The calls that we should “take the gloves off” when fighting enemies who operate in inherently illegal and immoral ways is a mistake. And we’ve seen some of that in the Gaza war, where Israel’s standards of operational war were much stronger than its enemies, but arguably did not meet the international standards that America and other advanced western nations try to adhere to.

    If the principle is that you can do anything your opponent does, then that justifies Israel engaging in actual genocide like it’s opponents desire. Is that really what we want?

    And in terms of the big picture, I think this is much worse than merely the problems with preemptive pardoning out of a fear of political prosecutions. This is a huge—massive—expansion of Executive Power. It means that partisans in an administration—as well as allies outside of it—have to worry much less about adhering to norms and legal requirements. Biden has taken a huge step toward a situation where an administration can immunize itself against wrongdoing. To the extent that we are heading to authoritarian governance, Biden has made a pretty big ratchet in that direction. All for what? Again, revealed preferences – the danger of an powerful, authoritarian federal government has been made easier for the temporal and tactical advantage of protecting (some) allies and family from the potential threat of a political prosecution. The trade isn’t worth it at all, IMO.

    7
  19. DK says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    They seem more like a defensive position to me, if not actually avoiding a fight.

    There is a school that believes the best offense is good defense. Since Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, this has been a strategic military principle.

  20. Gustopher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I see this as more of a “break glass in case of emergency” statement, one last “this guy is a threat to everyone.” I don’t think it will be effective at alerting anyone not already alarmed, but I expect this was as much meant as a message as any defense.

    As far as breaking norms go, he left one in place: He didn’t pardon himself. (Or his wife, for that matter)

    If this was done in his final moments in office, does that mean he was sitting for the pomp and circumstance of the inauguration, and filling out paperwork?

    Also, the only way we will ever see any movement towards reforming pardons is if a Democrat abuses it and the right wing infotainment hate machine picks it up as the gravest threat to America for a bit.

    4
  21. Andy says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    We need to fight back. And when we fight back, I really don’t want to hear people moaning about norms. I have a possible explanation for the difference between Joyner, Taylor and Bernius: Joyner is a soldier.

    Explain how this is “fighting back.” Claiming one has principles and going on and on for years about how it’s beyond the pale to do what Biden just did, and then saying it’s fine to throw those principles out when they become inconvenient with a lot of handwaving about the need to fight back is—in my view—an own goal, not “fighting back.”

    We are still a democracy. There will be another Presidential election in four years and mid-terms in two. I fail to see how this action or support for it helps Democrats outside of the die-hard partisan contingent who is already in the bag. And it hands a tool and weapon to Trump right as he takes office. Biden has broken the norm for him; now Trump gets to capitalize on it, and Biden and those who defend what Biden has done throw away any moral authority they had.

    5
  22. DK says:

    @Gustopher:

    If this was done in his final moments in office, does that mean he was sitting for the pomp and circumstance of the inauguration, and filling out paperwork?

    No. The pardon was in response to recent calls for retribution aimed at Joe’s siblings.

    1
  23. DK says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    It is just another way that GOP voters can tell themselves “all politicians do it” so why should I care that Trump does X, Y, or Z?

    So what?

    With my whole chest:
    F–k GOP voters.

    They tell themselves trans woke DEI migrants are the cause of all their problems, but Nazi-saluting oligarch Musk cares about them.

    No responsible politician should constrain himself to the low IQ hallucinations of GOP voters.

    3
  24. Matt Bernius says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    I am not sure if the pardons constitute fighting back. They seem more like a defensive position to me, if not actually avoiding a fight.

    Again, 100% cosign on this.

    Or rather, it’s pushing any potential fights onto people who have far fewer resources, support, or visibility.

    Again, that can be a totally understandable decision from the perspective of trying to protect someone from the pain of going through a prosecution. And that’s a morally defendable position.

    But I’ve yet to read any comment that convinces me that this constitutes “resistance” or “fighting.”

    2
  25. @DK:

    So what?

    Because I would like some of them to rethink their vote and behave differently in the future instead of having the ability to rationalize what they did and to continue voting the same way.

    4
  26. DK says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: The hardest task in politics.

    I believe most Trump voters are lost, gone, hopeless, unreachable and unlikely to respond to any external persuasion. The persuadle GOP voters have mostly already left the GOP (*raises hand*).

    Somebody has to make the effort, but there’s millions of other eligible adults to beg, bribe, shame, convince, and cajole.

    1
  27. Kingdaddy says:

    Let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence. The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was pretty much lifted from John Locke’s Second Treatise On Government, which was much on the minds of the Founders when they decided to rebel, and then later, when they wrote the Constitution. Locke asked the most fundamental question why do we have governments? Imagine, he says, a world without them, a state of nature:

    That in the state of nature every one has the executive power of the law of nature, I doubt not but it will be objected, that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends: and on the other side, that ill nature, passion and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others; and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow, and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men.

    In short, you can’t afford to have the inevitably bad outcomes of people being judges in their own case, as opposed to as objective a governmental authority as possible. Although Locke didn’t talk about the corrosive effects of cynicism, when public authorities fail in their duty to act impartially, as Steven said, it’s just as important as the bad judgments themselves. If we wind up with a country of people with poisonously cynical perspectives on government (Politicians are all the same, the system is inevitably rigged, I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help, etc. etc.), it will be even harder to rebuild common civil society, the rule of law, and all the rest.

    By the way, a few sentences later, Locke disagreed with his predecessor, Thomas Hobbes, who also built an argument, based on a “state of nature” thought experiment, but who came to different conclusions about what the best form of government would be. Hobbes argued in Leviathan for an autocrat. Locke said, nope, that’s even worse than the state of nature:

    I shall desire those who make this objection, to remember, that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be the remedy of those evils, which necessarily follow from men’s being judges in their own cases, and the state of nature is therefore not to be endured, I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the state of nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without the least liberty to any one to question or controul those who execute his pleasure? and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by reason, mistake or passion, must be submitted to? much better it is in the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another: and if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind.

    Clearly, these aren’t dusty political tracts of a past age. They speak directly to the here and now. Hobbes’ Leviathan is pretty much the same as the “unitary executive.”

    When Biden put his hand on the Bible and swore to defend the Constitution, that’s what he swore to defend: a government which started with impartiality. In the last minutes of his Presidency, he undermined its impartiality, both in fact and perception.

    To anticipate some obvious rebuttals, some of which have already been made here…

    At best, Biden’s actions delay the targeting of his family, Fauci, Cheney, Milley, et al. The kind of people who will ignore the rule of law to go after their enemies aren’t going to be permanently halted by the legal niceties of the pardon power. It may take a while to create an argument for circumventing the pardons, and subvert the machinery of justice sufficiently to put their strategy into action. But it’s just a delay. Fascists and authoritarians are not delicate souls.

    And why just Biden’s family. Why not Adam Kinzinger’s? His family has already been the targets of death threats. And why not Jack Smith and his family? How about the rest of the Biden extended family? There’s the rub with arbitrary powers: once exercised, it becomes very clear how arbitrary they are.

    Ultimately, this feels a lot like further denial of how this country has changed. Too many Americans already have either lost their faith in democracy and the rule of law, or they never had much faith in the first place. How does these pardons help, in the long run, keep us either from the war of all against all, or the Hobbesean tyrant? That’s the concern that the extraordinary oath of office is intended to inspire in the woman or man who embraces it. Anyone can care about their family and friends.

    4
  28. DK says:

    @Kingdaddy:

    At best, Biden’s actions delay the targeting of his family, Fauci, Cheney, Milley, et al.

    A smart legal strategy, based on the outcome of the delay in prosecuting Epstein-bestie thug Trump, for his illegal coup that culminated in his terrorist mob attacking our Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.

    1
  29. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Andy:

    The die-hard partisan only sees the huge difference as an inconvenience, but to the normie person, it raises legitimate questions about what she actually stands for.

    I’ve never had any problems understanding what any politician stands for. For as long as I can remember, I’ve thought that politicians stand for whatever will gain public approval on any given day. I neither believed nor disbelieved what Harris said in 2019, and so, took what she was saying in 2024 as what she thought would win approval of the voters.

    Their all lawyers. They’re trained in arguing whatever position will represent the client’s interests without regard to any other factors of personal belief or morality. It’s bone deep. (And a flaw in our adversarial system, but that is a discussion for another day.)

    2
  30. Kevin says:

    King daddy/Locke said it better, but one of these two things are true:

    Norms will hold, and breaking norms just makes things worse

    Or

    We’re really in a “break glass in case of emergency” situation, in which case eroding norms but still relying on norms to protect people is not going to work, and you probably should have broken a norm that would actually protect people.

    And I don’t know what the answer is when you’re abandoning norms in order to preserve them.

    4
  31. Jim Brown 32 says:

    This will deepen cynicism in the country and fuel any number of Trump’s narratives. It makes it all the harder to criticize Trump’s approach to the presidency.

    How? There is an entire faction of voters who justify (and have been for years) their leaders’ bad faith actions with,” They all do it…’ Voter Cynicism and Moral Apathy are rampant. There is no tangible results for them ‘deepening’ cynicism, as they are already well beyond a point that would cause them to demand better of their leaders

    As for fueling Trump narratives—really? One really has to think in terms of harm reduction here. He WILL find an enemy to attack. From a Dem standpoint, it’s better those enemies be ‘little people’ the Right Wing slime machine has not conditioned people to hate. When Guliani tried to slime the 2 sweet poll workee ladies in Atlanta–Trump left him on an island. He didn’t want any part of the Optics. Why? No one knew who these women were and they didn’t look the part on TV as bad people.

    One of the first things you learn in Military Strategy schools is to understand the type of fight you’re in. Dem/Never Trump punditry and politicians sincerely believe they are in competition with Republicans. They are not–they are in CONFLICT. The rules are different. You cannot compete with an opponent in conflict (with you) and think your actions will bring the adversary back into competition. In fact, it usually drives them deeper into conflict.

    All of the pearl clutching and “high road” has emboldened Republicans to double down on conflict–and, in light of their goals, I don’t blame them. When an adversary shows weakness and timidity for escalation–you press the advantage, not slow down.

    7
  32. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: They are forcing him into a battlefield geography he has not prepared for and will not bring the most favorable set of Optics. Prosecuting a SES, GS, or political appointee no one has heard of is not favorable to Trump.

    He will have to expend resources to figure out a loophole around the Pardons or beat up a Bureaucrat that he hasn’t had time to turn into Satan first.

    Neither will make great TV

    1
  33. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: This would assume:

    1. They made a ‘thoughtful’ choice
    2. Those voters show a resistance to cognitive dissonance.

    2 things we have not seen from Red America collectively

    2
  34. Kingdaddy says:

    And just to underline the point about arbitrariness, here’s Rachel Vindman’s post on Threads today:

    Whatever happens to my family, know this: No pardons were offered or discussed.

    I cannot begin to describe the level of betrayal and hurt I feel.

    1
  35. Kingdaddy says:

    @Jim Brown 32:

    The rules are different. You cannot compete with an opponent in conflict (with you) and think your actions will bring the adversary back into competition. In fact, it usually drives them deeper into conflict.

    I agree with you. At the same time, it’s important which rules or norms you’re willing to suspend. For example, in counterinsurgency, there are plenty of tactics that are clearly counterproductive. An internal war is neither a moral nor a practical excuse for, say, torture or indiscriminate bombing. These approaches, as attractive as they seem to people who like to say, “You don’t understand, we’re fighting a war here!” both rot the soul and help lose the war.

    My previous paragraph is definitely not putting Biden’s pardons on the same plane as waterboarding at Guantanamo. I am saying, be very, very careful when you start justifying things on the basis of, “This is war!”

    I’ve been arguing here at OTB that we should face facts about the rampant fascism and authoritarianism in our country, so that people would not continue to pursue idiotic strategies like, “Everything’s fine, we’ll just wait for them to implode,” or, “I’m sure a few executive orders will set everyone straight,” or, “This opinion piece will certainly show them what’s what?” Fascists and authoritarians laugh at opponents who are this deluded.

    Absolutely, we do have to play by different rules than normal. They will make us feel uncomfortable. (So too is the expectation that we may not be able to avoid a real calamity, or calamities, before this all ends.) But that’s not a carte blanche to do anything that is out of the ordinary.

    3
  36. DK says:

    @Kingdaddy:

    No pardons were offered or discussed.

    I cannot begin to describe the level of betrayal and hurt I feel.

    It doesn’t sound like the Vindmanns think Biden should have pardoned no one. Sounds like more people on the fascist administration’s enemies list should have requested a pre-emptive pardon.

    But that’s not a carte blanche to do anything that is out of the ordinary.

    And no one here has called for carte blanche. Yet. Given that a Nazi-saluting oligarch now has a White House office, stay tuned.

    3
  37. @Kevin:

    We’re really in a “break glass in case of emergency” situation, in which case eroding norms but still relying on norms to protect people is not going to work, and you probably should have broken a norm that would actually protect people.

    I agree there has to be a fight, but these pardons are weak tea as a fight.

    What these pardons do is protect, on balance, fairly powerful people.

    How is the particular norm-breaking a help?

    And if Biden wanted to fight, then let them come after his family and then use his wealth and connection to fight in court. That would have been more efficacious as fighting than forestalling a fight, yes?

    4
  38. Jen says:

    This won’t deepen cynicism because in short order, it will be forgotten.

    We have a funder/purchaser of the President literally giving a Nazi salute on inauguration day.

    A handful of preemptive pardons? Worrying about this probably isn’t going to age well.

    2
  39. Tom Strong says:

    I hope I am too pessimistic, but I’m honestly doubtful the pardons will even be much protection for these relatively powerful folks. The can protect in a court of law, but MAGA retribution may easily extend beyond that, especially given last summer’s SCOTUS decision.

    1
  40. Kevin says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear: one way or the other, these pardons aren’t helpful. Either they protect people from something they didn’t need to be protected from, or they’re too weak to protect people from what’s coming.

    But I struggle with what Biden should have done. We’re having the reverse of the conversation we had four years ago. If he’d wanted to retain power somehow, he’d have to conduct a coup. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, he would have been legally immune from having Trump jailed, and could offer pardons to anyone assisting, but again, unless he was going to conduct a coup, Trump becomes president today, and is released. Short of ordering Seal Team Six to take Trump out, which would require finding people willing to both give and carry out the order, which I’d hope he wouldn’t, I don’t know what he was supposed to do.

    Of course, the converse is true, now, and hopefully Trump won’t be able to find people to follow illegal/immoral orders, but he’s already shown that such people exist. It’s a weakness of the left, relative to the right; we aren’t great at top-down organizing or organized violence.

    2
  41. Barry says:

    @Andy: “This is a huge—massive—expansion of Executive Power. ”

    Compared to SCOTUS’s “If a Republican President does it, it’s no illegal” decision, no.

    “It means that partisans in an administration—as well as allies outside of it—have to worry much less about adhering to norms and legal requirements. ”

    Read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

    “Biden has taken a huge step toward a situation where an administration can immunize itself against wrongdoing. ”

    As I said, read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

    3
  42. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Kevin: I don’t see it as abandoning norms to protect them. I see it as acknowledging that the norms are non-existent already and acting to protect people. I don’t know whether the action was wise or not, but I’m not going to second guess anyone either. Biden has agency. He can do what he chooses, as can the rest of us. I hope to never be faced with such a question. But I also believe that violence is a tool that sometimes solves problems (and you can take that statement wherever it leads you).

    2
  43. Jax says:

    Did Biden require 1 million dollar donations for his pardons? No? Then I don’t give a fuck. We live in the strangest timeline, where people newly come to power are openly threatening the honest among us, and we’re debating about “norms”. Nothing is normal, nothing is going to be normal ever again. It just is what it is. The stove has been hot for a long time, and the children want to touch it.

    6
  44. DK says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    What these pardons do is protect, on balance, fairly powerful people.

    Because the Hitler-wannabe president has vowed retribution against, on balance, fairly powerful people.

    Duh.

    1
  45. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Andy:

    We are still a democracy. There will be another Presidential election in four years

    Oh? You’re 100% sure of that? I’m not. I’m surprised you are.

    it hands a tool and weapon to Trump right as he takes office.

    What the hell are you talking about? He already has all the weapons. He is already beyond law or reason, let alone norms. This is the logic of the pacifist who thinks if he fights back he’s just proving the enemy is right. It’s the logic of surrender and submission.

    But, but, I followed all the norms, he cried as they dragged him away.

    1
  46. Barry says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: “BTW: I am not sure if the pardons constitute fighting back. They seem more like a defensive position to me, if not actually avoiding a fight.”

    Soldiers do carry shovels.

  47. Barry says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:” And if Biden wanted to fight, then let them come after his family and then use his wealth and connection to fight in court. That would have been more efficacious as fighting than forestalling a fight, yes?”

    100% incomprehension of reality.

    2
  48. Rick S says:

    Trump and his ilk have been consistently stomping over norms, and it’s really a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. They can’t really be opposed by following the norms, because they don’t care about them. If Dems break the norms to fight them, that works in their favor by letting them say “look, the Dems already did it.” If Dems don’t break the norms to fight them, they get to just do what they want.