Washington – The start of the week saw a significant contrast between the actions of the outgoing and incoming presidents concerning pardons, highlighting deep-seated political divisions. The day commenced with President Joe Biden extending clemency to lawmakers and family members, while later, President Donald Trump pardoned individuals linked to the violent January 6 Capitol riot that occurred four years earlier.
The clemency decisions made by both leaders differ starkly in purpose and implications, raising concerns for the rule of law. Biden’s actions were directed at family members and public servants who had not faced criminal accusations, reflecting his stance against partisan attacks. Meanwhile, Trump’s pardons benefited those convicted of serious crimes during the Capitol insurrection, indicating a contrasting view of justice.
This series of pardons underscores the mutual distrust both presidents harbor for one another, with Biden and Trump suggesting that the traditional foundations of the criminal justice system—such as evidence and law—may not be upheld during each other’s tenures. Former U.S. attorney John Fishwick Jr. remarked that despite their differing approaches, both leaders conveyed a troubling message about the integrity of the justice system.
Biden’s pardons included family members who he felt had been subjected to relentless attacks for partisan reasons. He cited similar sentiment when he pardoned his son Hunter in December for offenses related to taxes and firearms, despite his previous commitments against doing so. Furthermore, Biden also pardoned individuals such as public health experts and former military leaders, who might have faced scrutiny under a Trump administration despite a lack of credible evidence against them.
In a notable move, Biden commuted the sentence of Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier, which attracted criticism from law enforcement and the former FBI director, who cautioned against such decisions. Nevertheless, Biden expressed his belief in the rule of law while acknowledging that extraordinary circumstances prompted his actions.
Public perception of the criminal justice system’s reliability is diminished, particularly amidst concerns about Trump’s return to power. Surveys indicate that nearly half of Americans lack confidence in the Justice Department and associated entities to operate impartially during Trump’s anticipated second term.
As the two administrations exchanged pardons, their leaders appeared to be reflecting their belief that political bias could taint any legal scrutiny of their actions and supporters. Trump’s sweeping clemency for those charged in connection with the January 6 events far surpassed expectations, covering over 1,500 individuals, many of whom were involved in the violent confrontation with law enforcement.
Trump has characterized these individuals as victims of the political system, suggesting that their treatment has been unjust. Critics argue that such views undermine the principles of the rule of law, raising alarms about presidential overreach. Experts believe such actions illustrate a belief that a president can wield influence over legal matters at will, diminishing public trust in the judicial system.
Concerns regarding Trump’s expected attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, and her statements during her confirmation hearing further emphasize the prevailing skepticism about the integrity of the Justice Department in the current political landscape.
The recent pardons, viewed through the lens of political strategy rather than justice, reinforce the notion among critics that the criminal justice system may be perceived as biased or manipulated. Observers like Fishwick argue that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for clemency powers to be used as political tools, raising questions about the future of justice under a polarized administration.
