Newly uncovered communications between the Biden administration and Justice Department officials have raised questions about the legality of former President Joe Biden’s last-minute pardons. These documents, which were shared with Fox News Digital by the Surveillance Project, reveal concerns from career prosecutors regarding the unconventional and potentially problematic nature of the administration’s amnesty process.
One notable email from then Assistant Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, sent on January 18, addressed over 2,500 amnesty requests. In it, he pointed out that the White House inaccurately portrayed some individuals as merely commuting to work when, in fact, they were convicted of non-violent drug crimes. He suggested that this characterization could be misleading. There was also pushback from House Republicans, calling for scrutiny of Biden’s pardons following a controversial bombing incident.
In his email, Weinsheimer highlighted a limited review process that had initially flagged 19 cases as particularly concerning, including those of inmates with serious convictions, such as drug trafficking that involved a police officer’s murder. This, he noted, resulted in significant objections from victims’ families and law enforcement organizations.
Kyle Brosnan, vice president of the Surveillance Project, expressed worries over the unclear criteria used for pardons, which seemed to involve an illegal delegation of presidential power. He highlighted the discrepancy in claims that many pardonees were non-violent offenders when, in fact, some had committed severe crimes.
Brosnan also referenced spreadsheets shared among DOJ officials, illustrating crimes categorized under broad warrants. An email from Weinsheimer requested clarity from the president about the meaning of the pardons, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the president’s intended approach.
He critiqued the administration’s communication, stating there was ambiguity in the crime statistics presented, with recommendations that Biden’s team reconsider how they described the pardoned individuals. Brosnan underscored that only the president holds the authority to grant pardons and that a failure to adhere to that could compromise their legality.
In a prior interview with the New York Times, Biden defended the pardons, pointing out that he didn’t personally approve each individual case. Instead, he had established criteria, allowing staff to identify eligible prisoners. The pardons sought to rectify disproportionately harsh sentences, especially regarding crack versus powdered cocaine offenses.
Biden’s stance is that these clemency actions are significant steps towards correcting historical injustices and helping individuals reintegrate into their communities. Despite the administration’s defense, the legitimacy of these pardons remains under scrutiny, and the DOJ was contacted for further comment on the matter.
