Biden's controversial pardons shine new light on power, as PA lawmakers take next step to strip Joe's name
Lawmakers at the state and federal levels are responding to President Joe Biden's record presidential pardon spree – as more than 3,000 people found their sentences commuted or pardoned. The pardons, some of which came in the final hours of Biden's presidency, were issued to many members of his own family.
The last-minute tranche on Sunday that included James Biden, Hunter Biden and Valerie Biden-Owens came only weeks after a record 1,500 commutations in a single day – notably including that of disgraced Pennsylvania Judge Michael Conahan.
Conahan, of Wilkes-Barre, was dubbed the "kids for cash judge" after he was charged in connection with a scheme to send juvenile offenders to for-profit prisons in exchange for kickbacks.
Pennsylvania state Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Dallas, represents the area where Conahan once sat on the bench.
Baker told Fox News Digital the former president's pardon in that case was "disrespectful to the victims, their families, the juvenile justice system, and to all the officials who have worked to reform the system so that this kind of scandal cannot happen again."
She and other lawmakers are also trying to bring new attention to victim notification processes that exist at the federal level and in many states, including Pennsylvania.
A source familiar with the federal process said the system is a voluntary construct, in that victims may sign up for notifications but are not automatically informed if convicts are pardoned, transferred or released.
Rep. Dan Meuser, R-Pa., said he was troubled by much of Biden's pardon spree, including those given preemptively to family and President Donald Trump critics, as well as convicts like Conahan – whose "kids for cash" scandal greatly affected his constituents – and added that the former president may have damaged the pardon process.
"These preemptive actions amount to an implicit admission of wrongdoing," Meuser said of pardons given to Biden family members.
"This sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the long-standing purpose of the presidential pardon power. Historically, pardons have been used to offer clemency or correct injustices—not to shield one's family members from potential accountability before any charges are even brought."
Unfortunately for Biden critics, Meuser said the presidential pardon power is enshrined in Article II of the Constitution, and Congress has no power to intervene or change it.
"While I vehemently disagree with Biden's decision to preemptively pardon members of his family, the presidential pardon power is established [therein]. That means, absent the ratification of a constitutional amendment, Congress does not have the power to review, alter, or pass legislation limiting a president's pardon power."
Meuser pointed to the 1974 Supreme Court case Schick v. Reed, which confirmed Congress cannot have a role.
"Nevertheless, our Founding Fathers never could have conceived that a president would pardon a son who broke countless laws and utilized the White House to defraud and leverage millions of dollars in a pay-to-play scheme that also involved other family members."
Rep. Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa., who flipped Biden's home district in November, has also expressed concern over Biden's use of presidential pardons.
"I think what's discouraging is that you heard time and time again along the campaign trail that he wasn't going to do something like this, but I'm certainly not surprised," Bresnahan recently told WBRE.
"I'm sure much of America is not surprised."
While countless Americans who fell victim to those pardoned, including Conahan, may have little recourse, Baker said she is participating in the drafting of legislation in Harrisburg late Friday that will attempt to remove Biden's likeness from part of his home area.
While the former Spruce Street in Scranton – since renamed Biden Avenue – is city property, Baker said the "President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Expressway" splitting off Interstate 81 into his hometown is within PennDOT's bounds.
"The reaction has been so strong that many have called for renaming the President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Expressway, which was designated by Scranton City Council in 2021," Baker said.
The lawmaker added Biden's legacy is forever "stained" by Conahan's "inexplicable and infamous commutation."
"We owe it to the juvenile victims, their families, and all the believers in equal justice to remove the name of Joe Biden and replace it with someone truly deserving of the honor."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal Social Security needs some major changes, but they aren't in the new tax bill. Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. Social Security is one of the biggest issues politicians in Washington must address in the next few years. Many retirees are feeling the pressure on their budgets due to rising inflation, despite automated cost-of-living adjustments for their monthly benefits. Meanwhile, the Social Security trust fund is in danger of depletion by early next decade if Congress fails to make any reforms to the program. Not only will that impact the amount future retirees will receive, but it'll cut benefits for the tens of millions of people relying on retirement benefits right now. President Donald Trump made several promises to voters about Social Security during his 2024 campaign. He said the government won't cut benefits, and it won't raise the retirement age for new beneficiaries (which is just another form of cuts). His biggest promise of all, though, aimed to help stretch each dollar of Social Security further for retirees. Trump proposed doing away with taxes on Social Security benefits. Not only are taxes on Social Security income complicated, they can significantly reduce the value of each retiree's monthly checks. But in the version of the new tax bill the House of Representatives just passed last month, there's no tax cut on Social Security benefits at all. While many retirees may find that disappointing, the truth is that they may be better off without it. How the government taxes Social Security As mentioned, taxes on Social Security income can be quite complex. The government uses a metric called combined income to determine what percentage (if any) of your Social Security benefits count as taxable income. Combined income is equal to half your Social Security income, plus your adjusted gross income, plus any untaxed interest income. If your combined income exceeds certain thresholds, you'll have to pay taxes on up to 85% of your Social Security benefits. Here's how it breaks down. As you can see, the thresholds are extremely low. That's because they haven't been updated for inflation since they went into effect over 30 years ago. Nonetheless, Social Security benefits have gotten annual adjustments to the point where the average retiree collects about $2,000 per month from Social Security. As such, more and more retirees are facing a tax bill on their Social Security income each year. Eliminating that tax sounds like a great relief for many seniors, but the policy could actually harm lower-income retirees the most over the long run, while leaving very few Americans better off. The unfortunate truth about Social Security's future As mentioned, Social Security is facing a significant shortfall if Congress fails to reform the program. Demographic shifts and extending life expectancies have led to higher cumulative benefits payouts without the requisite income to support those payments. The latest Trustees Report estimates the Social Security trust fund for retirement benefits will drop to $0 by 2033. At that point, the incoming funds will only support about 79% of benefits due. There are three components of how the Social Security trust fund generates revenue to support benefits payments. First is the tax on wages that's usually split between employers and employees. Every dollar of wages in America (up to $176,100 per person in 2025) incurs a 12.4% tax that goes directly to Social Security. That brought in $1.1 trillion last year. The second source of income comes from investing the funds held in the trust in government bonds. Net interest income totaled almost $64 billion last year. The third source of income is taxation on benefits themselves. In other words, Trump's plan to get rid of the tax on Social Security benefits will accelerate the depletion of the Social Security trust fund. And while those taxes generated just $54 billion last year, they're a growing source of revenue, and the impact is very noticeable. It could accelerate the trust fund depletion by over a year and require a 25% cut in benefits (instead of 21%), according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Eliminating taxes on Social Security will harm everyone in the long run, but the policy will only benefit a small percentage of Americans in the near term. Low-income households pay very little taxes on Social Security income. The bottom 40% of households by income receiving benefits pay an average of less than 1% in taxes on their benefits. Even high-income households don't face significant tax burdens. The top quintile of retirees, those with more than $205,800 in household income, pay just 20% in taxes on Social Security benefits, on average. Here's what the "One Big Beautiful Bill" offers instead Instead of cutting taxes on Social Security benefits, Americans age 65 and older will get an additional $4,000 tax deduction as long as their income remains below certain thresholds. That could give seniors some relief without as much negative impact on Social Security in the long run. As a result, most seniors will be better off under the current plan than if Trump got his way and fully eliminated taxes on Social Security. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Dems 'deliberately obfuscating' truth about 'big, beautiful bill' with this claim: Watchdog
After House Republicans passed reconciliation language banning taxpayer funds from paying for sex change treatments, Democrats began using language to drum up opposition that conservative watchdog group the American Principles Project says is meant "to confuse people and make it sound like we're trying to ban normal healthcare, medically necessary healthcare." The House-passed version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes provisions that prohibit federal Medicaid and Affordable Care Act funding from being spent on "gender transition procedures for any age" in all 50 states. In response, Democrats and left-wing groups have begun claiming the GOP's spending package seeks to eliminate "medically-necessary care." However, according to APP President Terry Schilling, "it's a lie" and an effort to combat the prevailing notion among Americans that taxpayer funds should not be paying for transgender procedures. "They're deliberately obfuscating here, and it's because they don't have any good arguments," Schilling told Fox News Digital. "We shouldn't be paying for any cosmetic sex change procedures with our tax dollars, and that's what we're cutting here. "But they're introducing and now ramping up these highly weaponized and high-powered words to confuse people and make it sound like we're trying to ban normal healthcare, medically necessary healthcare." After Republicans in the House of Representatives passed their version of the GOP spending package last month, the Congressional Equality Caucus complained that "Congress should be working to make healthcare more affordable – not banning coverage of medically necessary care." "House Republicans changed a previous anti-trans provision so it now cuts off federal Medicaid and Affordable Care Act funding for medically-necessary care for ALL transgender people — no matter their age," a press release from the pro-trans Human Rights Campaign said after the House passed its spending bill. According to APP's Schilling, arguments that Republicans are taking away "medically necessary" healthcare from anyone are "just not true." To make his point, APP's Schilling pointed to one of the left's frequent sources for transgender medical recommendations, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Schilling pointed out that WPATH's guidelines and standards explicitly state there is no "one-size-fits-all approach" to treating individuals with gender dysphoria. "These are not medically necessary [treatments]. It's a lie. These are cosmetic," Schilling argued. "If you look at WPATH, even according to their own standards, transgender-identifying people don't actually have to medically transition. They say there's no one size fits all. Well, I'm sorry, but medically necessary means you need it in order to survive. You need it for your health. And they're saying in their own writings that it's not medically necessary, that it's not a one-size-fits-all." Schilling added that they're "arguing out of both sides of their mouth." "We're calling out the transgender industry, and we're trying to stop them from confusing even more people as we pass a very, very good and important bill," he said. In a statement to Fox News Digital, the Human Rights Campaign argued "gender-affirming care" is considered "best practice" and "evidence-based" by every major medical association in the country, noting that studies have shown it significantly improves mental health outcomes for transgender youth. "Healthcare decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors — not the American Principles Project," HRC said. Schilling said he has run numerous polls and focus groups about whether Americans agree with taxpayer funds supporting individuals' gender transitions, and he told Fox News Digital that the overwhelming sentiment from people across the political spectrum is that they should not. "Here's where Americans are at," Schilling said. "They want to ban the procedures for anyone under 18. And, anyone over 18, they want you to pay for it yourself. That's where they're at, and that's where [APP is] at, and that's where Donald Trump is at. That's where Republicans in the House and Senate are at." The Congressional Equality Caucus did not respond to requests for comment on this article.
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Congress' fight over security erupts after Minnesota shootings
A long-simmering fight over congressional security roared back to the surface this weekend following a pair of shootings against Minnesota state legislators at their homes that left two dead and two others hospitalized. Why it matters: The shootings have deeply unnerved members of Congress, who feel that any one of them could be the subject of an unanticipated attack — particularly at home in their districts and while in transit. Personal security details are largely a privilege for top congressional leaders and — in some cases — other high-profile members facing specific, credible threats. Rank-and-file members are renewing a push for greater security, arguing for their own details, greater safety measures at their homes and at airports and more stringent measures to hide their sensitive details. Driving the news: Minnesota state House Democratic Leader Melissa Hortman and her husband were shot and killed at their home early on Saturday. The suspect, identified by law enforcement officials as 57-year-old Vance Boelter, also allegedly shot Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife at their home, leaving both hospitalized. Boelter was allegedly dressed as a police officer and driving a vehicle similar to those used by local law enforcement. He also had what investigators described as a "manifesto" that listed other Democratic lawmakers, as well as prominent abortion rights advocates, officials allege. State of play: The shooting sent shockwaves through Capitol Hill, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) saying he asked for increased security for Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Tina Smith (D-Minn.). House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said he similarly asked security officials to "ensure the safety of our Minnesota delegation and Members of Congress across the country." The Capitol Police said in a statement Saturday it was "aware of the violence targeting state lawmakers in Minnesota" and had "been working with our federal, state and local partners," but declined to offer further details. What they're saying: "I call on the Capitol Police to assist in providing real solutions for increased security for members," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee. Thompson, who had a security detail in 2022 as chair of the Jan. 6 committee, said he expects "full cooperation and resources from Republican leadership." "We're just as exposed as [Hortman] was. We have no more security than she does. You know, Capitol Police is not equipped ... for 435 members, to keep them safe," Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) told Axios in an interview. "It's not their fault," he added. "Things have changed. And as Congress becomes less functional in general, we can't even function to keep ourselves safe." What we're hearing: House Republicans held a call on Saturday afternoon, in which lawmakers exhorted their leadership to provide more security resources to individual members. Specific proposals included increasing security measures at members' homes and at airports, as well as boosting security for meetings, according to three House Republicans who were on the call. One of the GOP lawmakers, asked if leadership was receptive to those pleas, told Axios they "don't think so" and that "nothing's changed." A spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) did not respond to a request for comment. What's next: Jeffries will host a virtual briefing next Tuesday afternoon on members' security, according to invites viewed by Axios. A senior House Democrat told Axios that their colleagues are "scared" and want their addresses hidden — as well as regular security updates — and "won't be silenced." Another House Democrat said there is "heavy demand" in the party for rank-and-file members to have their own security details. The intrigue: Moskowitz told Axios he may force a House vote on holding what is called a " secret session" so members can have sensitive security discussions "if I have to." Such sessions, in which lawmakers can debate on the House floor away from public view, are typically used to discuss confidential information, as was the case the last time the House went into a secret session in 2008. Moskowitz can force a vote on his proposal unilaterally through what is called a privileged motion. "Maybe it also won't come to that," he told Axios. "Maybe we'll hear something from the speaker in the next week."
