By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. James Comer, has concluded that President Biden was not involved in the decision-making process for numerous pardons issued at the end of his term. Comer asserts that there is no evidence of meetings or discussions between Biden and his staff regarding these pardons, even when the use of an autopen is considered. This lack of direct presidential participation, according to Comer, provides sufficient grounds to deem these pardons “null and void.”
Read the original article here
A MAGA Representative is making waves, arguing that President Biden’s last-minute pardons should be deemed “null and void.” This stance, however, seems to have opened a Pandora’s Box of arguments, with many pointing out the potential for this precedent to be turned back on pardons granted by former President Trump. The core of the argument, as presented, is that if one administration’s pardons can be declared invalid, then so too could others, creating a highly unstable and potentially partisan system of justice.
The idea that Congress could have the authority to nullify presidential pardons is a significant claim, and one that many believe lacks constitutional backing. The presidential pardon power is quite broad, and while there might be desires to revisit or restrict it, the current legal framework doesn’t appear to grant legislative bodies the ability to simply erase these executive actions. This has led to the suggestion that perhaps the intent behind such arguments is less about constitutional principles and more about political maneuvering, aiming to specifically target actions taken by the current administration.
One recurring theme in the discussion is the fact that presidents, including Donald Trump, have historically issued pardons on their final days in office. Trump himself, it’s noted, granted pardons or commuted sentences to a considerable number of individuals on his last day. This historical practice complicates the notion that Biden’s actions are uniquely problematic or unprecedented, suggesting that the current outcry might be more politically motivated than based on a consistent application of principles.
The notion of setting a precedent for overturning pardons is viewed by some as potentially beneficial for future administrations, particularly if they wish to undo actions they deem objectionable. However, this also means that any administration could face the same scrutiny and have its own pardons challenged. The argument that “if Biden’s pardons are null and void, then so are Trump’s for the same reason” highlights this reciprocal potential, suggesting that opening this door benefits all sides, even if unintentionally.
There’s a strong sentiment that the presidential pardon power itself is due for a serious re-evaluation. The idea that these pardons have “sufficiently deviated from their originally intended use” is voiced, with concerns that they are being employed for reasons beyond their historical purpose, such as protecting allies or punishing perceived enemies. This widespread unease about the current state of the pardon power suggests a general desire for reform, regardless of which president is in office.
The characterization of some politicians, including the representative in question, as lacking in intellectual depth is prevalent. The assertion that some individuals are “so clearly, profoundly stupid” or possess a “no one is home” look suggests a frustration with arguments perceived as disingenuous or lacking in logical foundation. This commentary often ties into the broader frustration with the MAGA movement, with some suggesting that their supporters are unable to grasp the concept of consequences or reversals applying to their own leaders.
The comparison between the pardons issued by Biden and Trump is a central point of contention. Critics argue that the “MAGA crowd only think the revolving door swings one way and their collective intelligences can’t fathom a reversal of Trump.” The accusation that Trump has engaged in “nakedly corrupt pardons” is made, implying that if anyone’s pardons are questionable, it’s his. This fuels the argument that the current representative’s stance is hypocritical, especially when considering Trump’s own pardon history.
The practicalities of how pardons would actually be revoked are questioned. The core issue is the mechanism by which such an action could be legally accomplished. Without a clear constitutional or statutory pathway, the call to declare them “null and void” remains largely aspirational or, as some suggest, a tactic to “rile up Trump’s base.” The potential for “bipartisan backlash” against Trump’s pardons is also mentioned, suggesting that the issue isn’t as one-sided as some might claim.
The desire to see the precedent of overturning pardons established is voiced enthusiastically by some, particularly those who feel that individuals involved in events like January 6th should be held accountable. The idea of “sending all of those traitorous J6 bastards back to prison where they belong” illustrates this strong desire for punitive action. This perspective sees the proposed invalidation of pardons as a tool to achieve justice for past grievances, even if it means challenging established executive powers.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding the representative’s argument highlights a deep-seated distrust in the political process and the application of power. The call to declare Biden’s pardons “null and void” is seen by many as a disingenuous attempt to gain political advantage, and one that carries the significant risk of setting a precedent that could ultimately be used against those making the argument in the first place. The underlying sentiment is that if the door to questioning pardons is opened, it should be applied equally to all, including past presidents.