It paints a troubling picture that former President Joe Biden and his previous aides informed The New York Times that Biden ‘never gave individual approval to every name for the blanket pardons applying to vast groups,’ at the twilight of his rule. In lieu of that, Biden, as the Times portrayed, simply gave the green light to the criteria he wanted employed to figure who would be fortunate enough to have their sentences reduced. This narrative feels problematic to most; when the President of the United States decides to pardon or commute a criminal’s sentence, they should show due diligence in understanding the specifics of the case. The president’s role is not to distribute commutations like a vending machine popping out candies.
Before his departure from office, Biden issued pardon or commuted sentences for a plethora of rather unsavoury individuals. Let’s remember the ‘cash-for-kids’ judge who notoriously received $2.1 million worth of bribes, launching juvenile offenders as young as ten into for-profit detention centers, their sentences harshly disproportionate to their crimes. This shocking crime saw first-time offenders subjected to life-altering punishment, leading to one child tragically taking his own life. Pennsylvania Governor, Josh Shapiro, voiced his displeasure at the President’s decision, labelling Biden’s commutation of the once trusted judge’s sentence as ‘utterly erroneous’.
Then there was the Ohio County Commissioner implicated in several improprieties. This official was sent to jail having accepted bribes totaling $450,000, which included indulgences such as Las Vegas excursions, ladies of ill repute, and even an outdoor pizza oven. And let’s not forget the deplorable city comptroller from Dixon, Illinois, found guilty of pilfering a whopping $53.7 million from city coffers — a theft of unprecedented proportions in the annals of US municipality crime.
Equally troublesome was the fund manager who swindled investors to the tune of over $665 million, in what was Chicago’s grandest financial fraud case. Despite these individuals’ heinous acts, Biden publicly declared his perspective by stating: ‘America was built on the promise of possibility and second chances. As president, I have the great privilege of extending mercy to people who have demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, restoring opportunity for Americans to participate in daily life and contribute to their communities.’ Yet what had these malicious forces done to deserve such lavish chance at redemption?
The opportunistic decision to give away pardons distracted from the controversial case of Hunter Biden. The elder Biden had repeatedly assured the nation that there would be no such pardon for his son — assurances which seem hollow now. However, it’s worth dissecting just how closely Biden and his team reviewed the facts of the various cases they were tasked with. Would they mainly target nonviolent convicts for leniency as the media suggested?
Consider the curious case of Josephine Virginia Gray, sentenced to 40 years in prison in 2002 for insurance fraud, linked to the murders of three individuals from 1974 to 1996. Her crime fell under the ‘nonviolent’ label only on a technicality, and she was even resentenced in 2006. One wonders if any careful eyes in the Biden administration read through this file in detail before dispensing forgone punishment.
Worryingly, The Times revealed that information about specific inmates continued to evolve resulting in minor alterations to the list. Despite these changes, his staff did not bother Mr. Biden to sign the revised versions. Instead, they resorted to employing an autopen in what they considered a standard procedure. This disturbing laziness suggests a commuted sentence list was revised without the President’s scrutiny.
Notably, no last-minute additions to this revised list ever faced the President’s gaze. Instead, the surveilling of the additions was left to the autopen which, of course, lacked the capacity for thorough examination. The approach giving staff free rein to choose which criminals fit Biden’s vague guidelines seems to have driven these troublesome decisions.
In essence, a convicted felon just had to meet the President’s sketchy criteria to be welcomed back into society, disregarding potential backlash, the treatment of victims, or other influential factors. Legally, a president employing an autopen sign off holds the same weight as a hand signed approval. A memo from the White House Office of Legal Counsel under George W. Bush, some two decades ago, supported this practice, stating the President didn’t need to physically sign a Bill for it to be enacted, a subordinate could use an autopen to apply the signature.
This however assumes the President is well aware of what they are sanctioning through their autopen signature. The question that arises in this scenario is: Did Biden comprehend what he was signing, or what the autopen was signing for him? Did he possess a comprehensive understanding of who was being pardoned or whose sentences were being reduced?
This entire episode reveals a deeply concerning scenario. A significant number of convicts witnessed their fates change without a thorough review by the person responsible for the decision. It relegates the President’s authority to an automated machine, overlooking any unforeseen changes that appeared in the convict list.
There is nothing more unsettling than the thought of our leaders not carefully examining the cases for which they are responsible. Whether out of ignorance or laziness, this type of politics does not fare well for the citizens’ trust in their administration.
Despite all the highly publicised talk of ‘second chances,’ it is absolutely essential that those at the helm of power handle such grave responsibilities with the scrutiny they deserve. Unfortunately, in the case of these pardons, it asserts that former President Biden and his aides did not take this seriously. The trail of regrettable decisions in their wake continues to add to the growing doubts about the effectiveness and ethics of the Biden administration.