A series of last-minute pardons issued by President Joe Biden, intended to mitigate potential retaliatory actions from President-elect Donald Trump, does not entirely benefit the privileged individuals associated with his administration.
Among the select recipients of these presidential pardons are Liz Cheney and Dr. Anthony Fauci, a move that aides to Biden assert is designed to deter any acts of retribution from Trump or his forthcoming administration. Nevertheless, legal experts have quickly pointed out that these notable pardons will not exempt either individual from the obligation to respond to inquiries under oath.
Should they choose to do so, Republican members of the U.S. House or Senate may issue subpoenas to Cheney, Fauci, Hunter Biden, or any other individuals they believe could provide insight into possible misconduct by the Biden-Harris administration. While it remains unclear whether GOP lawmakers intend to pursue further investigations into the Biden family’s business activities, it is likely that the aforementioned individuals would be included on any congressional witness list if such inquiries continue.
Jesse Binnall, a federal litigation attorney, emphasized that Biden’s pardons do not shield Cheney or Fauci from consequences if they provide false testimony. In essence, the pardons could be seen as advantageous for those advocating for the prosecution of both figures.
“The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment,” Binnall stated on X. “And let’s just be realistic. Most of these individuals would likely face charges in Washington, DC, which tends not to convict partisan leftists.”
The protections granted by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution allow individuals to avoid self-incrimination; however, the comprehensive amnesty provided by a presidential pardon eliminates that necessity. If Representatives Jim Jordan (R-OH) or James Comer (R-KY) were to utilize their committee authority to question Cheney regarding the January 6 committee, for instance, she would be expected to answer truthfully about whether she withheld evidence that could exonerate Trump.
Dr. Fauci may soon be compelled to address whether he attempted to undermine any directives issued by President-elect Trump during the pandemic. In the summer of 2020, the coronavirus expert began to publicly challenge some of Trump’s remarks regarding the pandemic, at one point stating that his comments were “not helpful” in the effort to “flatten the curve.”
Among those who received pardons on Sunday night were General Mark Milley, the former military advisor to Trump who later expressed criticism of him, as well as all members of the January 6 committee.
“I have faith in the rule of law, and I am hopeful that the resilience of our legal institutions will ultimately triumph over political influences,” Mr. Biden remarked in a statement. “However, these are extraordinary circumstances, and I cannot, in good conscience, remain inactive. Unfounded and politically driven investigations cause significant distress to the lives, safety, and financial stability of those targeted and their families.”
“Even when individuals have committed no wrongdoing — and indeed have acted correctly — the mere existence of an investigation or prosecution can irreparably harm their reputations and financial well-being,” he continued.
Nevertheless, accepting a pardon may not always be the most prudent choice in terms of public perception, according to some commentators.
“Once you accept a pardon, it creates the impression that you are guilty of something,” former Representative Adam Kinzinger stated to CNN earlier this month.
