With new questions about his acuity, Biden's pardon choices should be revisited
The five of us have something in common. We were all convicted of federal crimes over the last 12 years, and we all completed applications asking for pardons from former President Joe Biden. Unfortunately, at 12:01 p.m. on President Trump's inauguration day, all five of us received emails informing us that our applications had been denied and we would have to reapply under the new administration.
We have all completed our sentences, so there is no question of having those shortened. What is at stake, in some of our cases, is our ability to make a living, sustain our families and become productive members of our communities again.
Presidential pardons have historically been a source of both relief and controversy. The pardon power was intended as a mechanism to provide justice and mercy to citizens for their offenses, because of our flawed humanity and because our justice system, like all human systems, is imperfect. While designed as a mechanism for justice and mercy, concerns arise when pardons appear self-serving — especially when granted by a president whose mental acuity has been questioned.
Biden's pardons of close associates and family members raised serious ethical and legal concerns, particularly when others in similar situations were denied pardons. The issue at hand was not about his legal right to grant pardons, but whether his cognitive condition affected the integrity of such decisions. This is particularly noteworthy since Biden used the full Nixon-era formula in granting 'full, complete, absolute and unconditional' pardons to members of his family, covering a lengthy period of time and without citing any specific alleged wrongdoing on their part.
Reports citing Biden's struggles with memory lapses, confusion during public engagements, and limited unscripted interactions have led to growing skepticism about his ability to make impartial, well-reasoned choices. If his cognitive decline influenced these pardons, then others denied pardons on similar grounds deserve reconsideration.
Biden, despite advocating for criminal justice reform, denied pardons to many nonviolent drug offenders and individuals who had applied for pardons citing unjust sentencing. And at the same time, relatives of the president, whose cases raised potential conflicts of interest, were granted pardons. The broader justice system often denies appeals based on procedural technicalities, even as high-profile figures with political ties are able to benefit from executive pardons.
If Biden's mental capacity is in question, Congress should consider requiring competency reviews for presidential pardon decisions. And those denied pardons should be given a second chance. A justice system built on impartiality cannot allow preferential treatment, particularly when personal ties may cloud judgment.
No one disputes the president's constitutional discretion in wielding the pardon power. But pardons must be given fairly, justly, free of undue influence. If Biden's family and associates benefited from a decision process that did not include his full understanding or consent, justice demands that others denied pardons receive reconsideration. Each of us respectfully requests it of President Trump now, for ourselves and for all those Americans who will need mercy and forgiveness in the future.
Warren Ballentine is a former attorney and radio host with more than 3 million listeners. Jesse Jackson Jr. is a former Democratic congressman representing Illinois. Michael Cohen is President Trump's former attorney. Michael Rothenberg is a rabbi and was a lawyer and part-time judge in DeKalb County, Ga. Dr. Michael Jones is a cardiologist in New Orleans. All five were convicted of non-violent federal crimes between 2013 and 2023 and have served their sentences.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Rep. Mikie Sherrill wins Democratic nomination for NJ governor
Democrats chose Rep. Mikie Sherrill as their nominee for governor of New Jersey, as the party attempts to defy odds by holding onto the governorship for a third term in a row. The Associated Press called the race just under an hour after polls closed. The four-term member of Congress prevailed in the crowded Democratic primary field on Tuesday to succeed term-limited Gov. Phil Murphy. She'll face Republican Jack Ciattarelli, setting up a high-stakes battle of two party establishment favorites. Both sides acknowledge that November's election will be competitive. Although the electorate does favor Democrats, it's been decades since Democrats have won the governorship three terms in a row in the Garden State. But in recent history, the candidate of the party opposite of the one that controls the White House typically wins the race for governor. Still, Republicans are emboldened by President Donald Trump's closer-than-expected loss in New Jersey last November, as well as the gains they've made to cut into Democrats' voter registration advantage. And Republicans argue it helps that they have a candidate with high name ID: Ciattarelli ran for governor two times prior and narrowly lost to Murphy in 2021.
New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
Mikie Sherrill Wins the Democratic Primary for Governor of New Jersey
Representative Mikie Sherrill on Tuesday won the Democratic Party's nomination to run for governor of New Jersey, capping a hard-fought primary that featured a large field of prominent and well-funded candidates. With about 35 percent of the estimated vote reported, Ms. Sherrill, a former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot who represents New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, outpaced five other candidates to win the nomination, according to The Associated Press. She is now expected to compete in November's general election against Jack Ciattarelli, the winner of Tuesday's Republican primary. Mr. Ciattarelli, a former state assemblyman, is running his third race for governor and is backed by President Trump, who has made clear his goal of helping to propel a Republican to the State House in Trenton after eight years of Democratic control. Ms. Sherrill, a lawyer and graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who worked for about four years for the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey, was among the 101 congressional newcomers — 42 of them women — who took office in 2019 during Mr. Trump's first term as president, flipping the House from red to blue. She won a seat held for nearly a quarter century by a Republican who did not run for re-election. This year, Ms. Sherrill, 53, was the only woman running for governor in either party's primary, and she stuck closely to a carefully curated message in which she presented herself as a mother and a veteran trained to run 'toward the fight.' Two of her four children will enter the Naval Academy later this month, a detail she shared with voters. Her narrow margin of victory reflected the size of the field and the prominence of each of the candidates, five of whom live in northern New Jersey and were competing for the same base of support. The other Democratic candidates were Mayor Steven Fulop of Jersey City; Mayor Ras J. Baraka of Newark; Representative Josh Gottheimer; Stephen M. Sweeney, a former State Senate president; and Sean Spiller, the president of the New Jersey Education Association. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Trump makes multiple false claims to the troops at Fort Bragg
President Donald Trump made a series of false claims to members of the military on Tuesday in a partisan and combative speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Trump lied again about the 2020 election. He repeated a long-debunked story about a Minnesota National Guard deployment in 2020. He again distorted the history of his first administration's fight against the ISIS terror group. He revived a fictional tale about immigration during former President Joe Biden's administration. And he exaggerated the military's recruiting challenges under Biden. In addition, Trump made a series of vague assertions about the protests in Los Angeles for which he presented no evidence. Here is a fact check of some of his checkable false claims from the speech – plus a false claim he made in remarks about California at the White House earlier in the day. The 2020 election: Trump repeated his long-debunked lie that the 2020 election 'was rigged and stolen.' Trump legitimately lost a free and fair election to Biden. The National Guard and Minneapolis: While bashing Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Trump revived a false story that CNN debunked nearly five years ago. Trump wrongly claimed that it was him, not Walz, who sent the National Guard to Minneapolis in 2020 amid the civil unrest that followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Trump said: 'I'll never forget in Minnesota: that city was burning down, Minneapolis, it was burning down, it was gonna burn to the ground, and he wouldn't call the guard. And I waited for a long time, and I called the guard, and I saved it.' In reality, publicly available evidence proves that Walz first deployed the Minnesota National guard more than seven hours before Trump publicly threatened to deploy the guard himself. While Walz was criticized by many Republicans and some Democrats for not sending in the guard faster, it is indisputable that Walz, not Trump, was the person who deployed the guard. You can read more here. Trump and the battle against ISIS: Trump repeated his regular false claim that even though 'they said it would take five years to defeat ISIS, we did in four weeks, four weeks.' The so-called ISIS 'caliphate' was declared fully liberated more than two years into Trump's presidency, in 2019, not 'in four weeks.' Military recruiting under Biden: Trump, boasting of the military's recruiting performance during his second administration, falsely claimed, 'Just think of this: six months ago, we couldn't recruit anybody to join the military. Nobody wanted to join. That was six months ago.' Even granting that words like 'nobody' can be used less than literally, it's simply not true that 'nobody wanted to join' the military at the end of the Biden administration. The ongoing uptick in recruiting actually began under the Biden administration. The Defense Department announced in October 2024, before Trump's second victory, that recruitment was up more than 12% in the 2024 fiscal year compared with the previous fiscal year; reported in October 2024: 'After years of negative recruiting news and headlines, all the military branches managed to eke out wins this year and meet their recruiting goals – largely aided by new programs and policies that allowed them to sign up recruits who would have been disqualified in previous years.' The Army, for example, added just over 55,000 recruits, up substantially from just under 45,000 in fiscal year 2022. Migrants, prisons and mental institutions: Trump made his frequent assertion that foreign countries deliberately placed prisoners and people with mental illnesses in the US as migrants during Biden's presidency. 'Many of them came out of prisons and jails – the most heinous people, they came from all over the world. They came from the Congo in Africa, they came from Asia, they came from the prisons of these places, they were put into the United States and allowed to stay here,' Trump said at one point. At another, he said, 'Their countries would bus them or drive them right to our border and say, 'Go in there. If you ever come back, we're going to kill you.'' Trump has never presented any evidence of any foreign government transporting their criminals to the US border under Biden. Nor has he corroborated his stories about foreign governments deliberately emptying prisons and mental health facilities to somehow facilitate migration to the US, which even his 2024 presidential campaign could not prove. His allegations about prisons in 'the Congo' have been rejected as baseless by independent experts, human rights organizations, and the governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo. California, fires and water: At the White House earlier on Tuesday, Trump again wrongly asserted that the January wildfires in Los Angeles 'started because they wouldn't allow water into LA, they wouldn't allow water into California' – and added that he then turned water 'around,' and 'now we have billions of gallons of water flowing down.' None of this is true. First, nobody has broadly refused to allow water into Los Angeles or into California as a whole. Second, experts on California water policy and firefighting have repeatedly explained that there is no basis for Trump's claims that the January wildfires were caused by water being used for environmental protection in northern California rather than being sent to Los Angeles. Third, Trump did not actually send water to Los Angeles earlier this year. Rather, in what experts widely described as a waste and a stunt, he had about two billion gallons of fresh water sent from one part of California's Central Valley to another part of the valley in late January and early February.
