WASHINGTON — A significant day of clemency unfolded in Washington, beginning with the outgoing president’s pardons for lawmakers and family members, and concluding with the newly elected president’s grants for supporters involved in the violent Capitol riot that occurred four years prior.
The pardons issued by former President Joe Biden and incoming President Donald Trump illustrate stark contrasts in intent and implications regarding their legal frameworks. While Biden’s pardons were aimed at individuals who had not been charged with crimes, Trump’s grants were directed towards those convicted of serious violent offenses. This rapid succession of these executive actions also underscores the profound distrust each holds toward the other, hinting at a broader narrative that questions the integrity of the legal system under their respective administrations.
“It was a somber day for justice, regardless of political views,” stated John Fishwick Jr., a former U.S. attorney for Virginia during the Obama presidency. He emphasized that both Biden and Trump conveyed a message regarding the perceived corruption of the judicial system, one asserting that the last four years had been marred by injustice and the other indicating a bleak future for justice under the new administration. “Delivering such messages is indeed troubling,” he noted.
In one of his final acts, Biden pardoned several family members, arguing that they had faced relentless assaults spurred by partisan politics. He expressed concern that such attacks would persist, paralleling his earlier decision to pardon his son Hunter for tax and firearm offenses, despite an initial commitment not to intervene. Additionally, Biden’s pardons extended to notable figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and former General Mark Milley, who were seen as likely targets in Trump’s transitioning government amid no public evidence suggesting criminal activities.
Even though Biden professed his belief in justice and the lawful functioning of institutions, he conceded that “exceptional circumstances” necessitated his preemptive actions.
This wavering trust in the legal system during Trump’s administration reflects a wider sentiment among the American populace. According to a poll, nearly half of the citizens expressed doubt regarding the impartiality of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Supreme Court in light of Trump’s anticipated second term, with only a small fraction indicating strong confidence in these institutions.
As Biden appeared to sense a direct threat to his family and allies from Trump’s potential retribution, Trump, in turn, expressed conviction that his predecessor had politically targeted his supporters following the Capitol assault.
Trump’s clemency actions spanned over 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 riot, a decisive move that outstripped expectations from his administration’s officials who had predicted only limited pardons. This sweeping decision effectively nullified what is recognized as the most extensive investigation in the history of the Justice Department. Among those pardoned were individuals who had actively clashed with law enforcement, armed with items such as flagpoles and batons, as well as leaders of extremist factions involved in failed schemes aimed at maintaining Trump’s power.
While Trump branded the rioters as “patriots” and “hostages,” he maintained that political motivations guided the judicial proceedings against them, despite the absence of proof of a coordinated effort by the Justice Department and the White House.
Chris Edelson, a professor at American University, criticized Trump’s actions, deeming them emblematic of a mindset that operates outside the bounds of lawful authority. He did not criticize Biden for his preemptive pardons, acknowledging the highly charged climate fostered by Trump’s rhetoric surrounding potential retaliatory actions against the previous administration’s critics. “Biden’s assurances about trust in the system would be fundamentally misleading,” Edelson remarked.
This ongoing discourse concerning the reliability of the legal system has gained momentum as Trump seeks Senate approval for nominations such as Kash Patel for FBI director and Pam Bondi for attorney general. Notably, during her hearing, Bondi claimed that she would not engage in political favoritism while alleging that the Justice Department had been politicized over the past four years.
For those opposing the pardons, like Fishwick, the actions risk perpetuating the false narrative that the criminal justice system is skewed. He observed, “Both Biden and Trump appear to be wielding the pardon power for political messaging, straying from the intent envisioned by the Founding Fathers.”
