Push to Overturn Biden-Era Pardons Gains Traction

It seems the movement to reverse certain pardons issued during President Biden’s administration—particularly those involving figures like Anthony Fauci and former General Mark Milley—is picking up steam. This week, the pardon attorney’s office expressed support for this initiative.

On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released a detailed report, spanning 100 pages, laying out allegations that high-ranking Biden staff members actively tried to hide the president’s noticeable mental decline. The report claims they also interfered with his executive powers, using a device known as the Presidential Autopen. This machine allegedly stamped Biden’s signature on various contentious executive orders and pardons.

The report included a serious claim: “Theoretically, a court annulment could restore the penalty.”

According to the committee’s findings, “President Biden has been losing control throughout his time in office, so many of his executive actions, especially the pardons, cannot all be attributed to him.” It emphasized that the authority to grant pardons should not be handed over to the president’s staff, particularly if there are concerns about his competency.

Committee Chairman James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, asserted that any executive action signed using the Autopen is “null and void.” He urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the legality surrounding all executive actions taken during Biden’s presidency.

Bondi later confirmed that a review of the use of autopens in pardons under Biden is indeed in progress.

Meanwhile, Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney, wrote to Comer, mentioning that his investigation had uncovered “alarming findings.” He expressed doubts about the validity of the pardons and commutations issued during Biden’s term, suggesting that without further investigation, it would be hard to support their legitimacy.

In a letter obtained by CNN, Martin expressed concerns about Biden’s decision-making process regarding pardons, specifically how he “failed to approve each name individually.” This raises questions about whether these pardons are effective.

Martin highlighted that worries regarding the legitimacy of these pardons were intensified by discussions between former Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer and President Biden, which suggested a lack of personal oversight in the matter. The report pointed to a potential legal flaw in an action taken on January 17 in President Biden’s name.

Moreover, pardon lawyers noted several “deficiencies” in how the pardons were handled, particularly towards the conclusion of the administration.

Martin explicitly stated, “My office cannot support the validity of the Autopen pardon for Anthony Fauci, Adam Schiff, Mark Milley, and many others without further investigation.” He admitted that he had not seen any evidence indicating that Biden was personally aware of or approved these pardons.

He hinted that these pardons might eventually be examined by the courts, acknowledging that defending them could be tricky if they were challenged.

The Oversight Committee echoed this concern, warning that courts might overturn the pardons, reinforcing that the Constitution gives the president the power to grant clemencies properly.

Further support came from constitutional law scholar Philip Hamburger, who stated that the decision-making power concerning pardons lies solely with the president. If someone else influenced that decision, the courts could invalidate it.

A successful court challenge to these pardons would be significant and could jeopardize Fauci, Milley, and others. However, some experts are skeptical about the likelihood of success in such a case.

When asked about the implications if a court were to invalidate the pardons, Jeremy Paul, a law professor, remarked, “Theoretically, an annulment by a court could restore the sentence. I think that’s highly unlikely.”

He continued, noting that if the Justice Department chooses to act against someone affected by these pardons, that individual would likely argue for clemency in federal court, leading to a complicated legal battle that might even reach the Supreme Court.

Then there’s Bernadette Mailer, a law professor at Stanford, who suggested that a potential route for invalidating the pardons could involve seeking a declaratory judgment based on irregularities in the signing or granting process.

Outreach for comments from the Office of the Pardon Attorney has been made.