Biden’s Hollow Legacy: Puppet Leaders and Neglected Responsibilities
Amidst the facades and veneers of the 2024 G7 Summit in the picturesque landscape of Apulia, Italy, a group convened to discuss the Pontifically Grandiose Infrastructure and Investment (PGII). Unsurprisingly, the gathering was joined by the former President Joe Biden, continuing his legacy of unsolicited intervention in global matters. A certain set of documents, recently brought to light, cast a depressing shadow over Biden’s claims of direct involvement and solo decision-making during his final year in office. The echo chambers of the ex-President’s office kept ringing with his assertions about adaptive control over executive orders, pardons, and proclamations, inflating every challenge to these claims as a ‘ridiculous and false’ narrative.
In the labyrinthine corridors of the official bureaucracy, many internal messages and documents hint towards a vastly different reality – one where critical decisions, including acts of clemency, were simply offloaded to others, including Kamala Harris, the former Vice President. The spotlight is now firmly centred on whether Biden did in fact formally approve certain decisions with full understanding and intent, or whether he merely played puppet to his aides’ puppeteering.
In the seemingly sanctimonious world of the Biden office, claims were initially made about personal signings by the President on all official presidential actions. It appeared, however, that this verbally exalted standard did not stand the test of Biden’s own timeline. An internal memo, rather openly, admitted the abandonment of this protocol by the term’s end.
Documents unearthed from the dust of the Obama-Biden administration were used to set a paradoxical cause to promote the personal authorization and signing of all presidential decisions. A peculiar directive appeared in a draft memo distributed to the White House’s top-rank officials in February 2021. Little did they know then, that this ‘general rule’ was due for an ironic abandonment.
The gradual decay of governance under Biden’s presidency was further evidenced by a draft memo circulated by the White House Counsel’s office in February 2024. It pointed out the increasing dependency on Harris’s approval for clemency actions. It seems, Biden, overwhelmed by his own schedule, found it hard to take out the time required to review and approve the clemency package. An unusual commentary on the functioning of the ‘world’s most powerful office’.
The office of the Chief of Staff was manipulated as a stop-gap measure for ensuring the decision-making process continued. Promoting convenience over democratic protocols, internal harmony over external scrutiny, and the Vice President’s approval over the President’s careful review. It seemed an invisible cloak had been laid over the due process, warping it in a way that the Vice President’s mere agreement hurriedly signalled Biden’s complete authorization.
The hallways of the White House echoed with Biden’s legacy of conferring 4,245 clemency actions during his tenure, a reckless bounty higher than any previous president. Almost in a feverish bid to write history, the Biden administration offered a series of sweeping actions, irrespective of the complexities or consequences linked to the cases.
Biden decided to commute the sentences of numerous individuals convicted of illegal firearm possession, clearly showing the administration’s careless approach to public safety. Besides, those with a conviction reporting to result in the death of a police officer were astoundingly subjected to this radical clemency initiative. The moral bankruptcy of the technocrats deciding on the value of a police officer’s life could not be more transparent.
In a series of questionable meetings in December and January, Biden allegedly gave verbal approval for his broad clemency actions. As understood from internal memos, grand plans were laid out without the need for documented approval. A stark deviation from time-tested processes and due diligence.
The disconcerting discovery of these internal messages and emails were results of an earnest investigation into claims that Biden aides may have conspired to mislead the public on Biden’s mental well-being, subsequently exercising presidential authorities in an unconstitutional manner. A claim that, in light of these revelations, appears more plausible.
The investigation sought to unmask the potential deception in regards of the former President’s mental state. While critics have pointed to such instances throughout Biden’s presidency, the damning evidence from these memos perhaps cement the suspicions.
The storyline painted by those close to the pardon process is indeed quite different. They vehemently deny any insinuation of decision-making being outsourced, and blame Republicans for creating misconceptions about the broad-based pardons sanctioned by Biden. It is easy to see, however, that such defensive posturing falls woefully short of fully addressing the allegations.
The source’s argument, quite cleverly, distracts from the core issue of the investigation. The focus is not on the concept of widespread pardons, but who exactly was at the helm of the process. Could it be that the trivialising of these allegations is a desperate attempt to shade the unsettling truths about the Biden presidency?
A pattern of denials and deflections becomes increasingly evident when faced with accusations regarding Biden’s presidency. Dismissing detractors as misunderstanding or politically motivated does little to address the concerns over the gridlocked investigation into potential procedural misdemeanours.
Nevertheless, this ongoing saga involves more than just blind-spot Republicans or denialist insiders. It’s about the act of governance, the tenets of democracy, and the trust we vest in our leaders. The fact that such discussions and questions are necessary speaks volumes about the flaws and failures in Biden’s time in office.