As President Joe Biden wrapped up his time in office, he made headlines with a series of last-minute pardons. Among those he protected were former Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Dr. Anthony Fauci. These pardons aimed to shield them from possible actions by the new Trump administration. However, while intended as a protective measure, many experts argue that these pardons come with significant limitations.
The pardons also covered figures like former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and members of the January 6 Committee, sparking heated debate. Critics, particularly those aligned with Trump, pointed out that these individuals could still be summoned to testify. Legal expert Jesse Binnall emphasized that, even with pardons, individuals would be required to answer congressional subpoenas truthfully or risk perjury charges.
Binnall mentioned that despite the pardons, these individuals can’t use the 5th Amendment to avoid testifying. He stressed the importance of ensuring fair trials outside of the potentially biased Washington, D.C.
Adding his voice, retired Army officer Kurt Schlichter shared his concerns about fairness in D.C. He suggested that relocating these legal proceedings might help counteract what many see as a liberal bias in the capital.
On his first day back, Trump spoke out against the pardons, particularly criticizing Liz Cheney. “Liz Cheney is a disaster,” he said, calling her emotionally unstable and guilty of serious misconduct.
Experts were quick to explain the limitations of presidential pardons. Josh Barnett, a former legislative candidate, clarified on social media that these pardons only cover known offenses at the time they were granted. This means new charges could still emerge, and if someone commits a crime like treason after the pardon, it wouldn’t be covered.
Barnett further elaborated that pardons typically cover past offenses, not potential future ones. Any new crimes discovered or committed after the pardon would open the door to further prosecution.
The pardon of Gen. Milley added more fuel to the debates. Milley had faced criticism for reportedly reaching out to his Chinese counterpart during the last days of Trump’s term. Some conservative voices accused him of compromising national security, and they argued that, while pardoned, he could still face charges if recent allegations proved true.
Biden’s final actions highlight the enduring divide in U.S. politics, with both parties gearing up for more intense clashes on accountability and governance. Instead of calming the waters, these pardons have set the stage for more scrutiny and legal challenges in the months to come.
