Biden's controversial pardons shine new light on power, as PA lawmakers take next step to strip Joe's name
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.
Lawmakers Demand Scranton Change 'Biden Expressway' Name After Judge Pardoned
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."
Read On The Fox News App
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.
ECONOMY BORDER & ABORTION DIVIDE BIDEN'S HOMETOWN AS RESIDENTS LOOK BACK ON NATIVE SON'S FIRST TERM
"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."Original article source: Biden's controversial pardons shine new light on power, as PA lawmakers take next step to strip Joe's name
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
40 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's missile defense system is nothing but fool's gold
There can be wisdom in cliche. More than 120 years after philosopher George Santayana wrote, 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,' his well-known phrase remains an essential guide for national defense. Case in point: The French failed to draw the proper lessons from the brutal trench warfare of World War I and constructed a better, yet still fixed, static defense in the 1930s — the Maginot Line — that was simply bypassed by the Germans on their way to Paris during World War II. It can also be a mistake to learn too much from a recent success, applying those lessons to different circumstances. For example, Israel has been remarkably successful at ballistic missile defense with its 'Iron Dome,' built to defend against short- and medium-range missile attacks from its regional enemies. So President Trump has launched his program to expand current U.S. missile defenses and build a 'Golden Dome' — similar in concept, but designed to defend the entire U.S. against long-range missile attacks. And already, with little national debate, Congress is allocating $38 billion this year toward the estimated $175-billion final cost, to be completed by January 2029 — its timing a parting gift from the president (assuming he leaves the White House on schedule). Is this modern shield a sustainable or wise choice for allocating U.S. defense dollars? It assumes that the Israeli missile defense against threats in its neighborhood can be replicated by the United States — a nation nearly 450 times the size of Israel — against global threats including the world's big boys, Russia and China. That assumption could produce a massively expensive venture, not 'golden' but instead built of fool's gold, with as little thought for the future strategic environment as the French gave to the Maginot Line. The vision of an American public protected from nuclear disaster is alluring — and the threats are real. Ballistic missiles are a clear danger to U.S. allies and bases and our homeland. Russia has hundreds of long-range ballistic missiles that can strike the U.S. within minutes; China is enhancing its arsenal of long-range weapons and has a huge arsenal of shorter-range missiles that could hit Taiwan and other U.S. allies and bases in the Asia-Pacific region. Ominous, yes. But even more important in assessing the Golden Dome is that today's threats are rapidly evolving, beginning with long-range ballistic missiles. These systems traveling at significantly greater speeds are inherently harder to defend against than the threats facing Israel. Russia, China and others are also investing in advanced missiles designed to evade defenses through their trajectory, maneuverability and the deployment of decoys. Shorter-range ballistic missiles too are becoming more capable of evasion. When fired in large groups they can penetrate a significant defense, as Iran did at times during June's 12-day war with Israel. Nor are ballistic missiles the only strategic threat. Witness Ukraine's use of cheap, conventionally armed drones to target Russia's strategic bomber force in a successful surprise attack in May. We should anticipate our adversaries' investing in cheap swarms of lethal drones and other new technologies to bypass our eye-poppingly expensive Golden Dome, like German tanks bypassing the Maginot Line. The design of the Golden Dome defense also remains incomplete. It will reportedly include both ground and space-based interceptors as part of a layered defense. But the details are sketchy and still difficult to assess. U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin says the Golden Dome is 'about connecting a global array of complex systems that need to work at lightning speed and with pinpoint precision at the mission's moment of truth.' That sounds impressive, even intimidating. But the rules of physics, and the offense-defense dynamic, have historically worked against strategic missile defense systems. Incoming weapons must be detected; interceptors must be guided to their targets through swarms of decoys; and the defense at the 'moment of truth' must achieve a near-perfect score against an increasingly lethal array. Imagine a relatively 'small' attack of 100 nuclear-tipped missiles and a Golden Dome that shoots down 80% of the incoming barrage. Pretty good. But that still leaves 20 nuclear warheads capable of destroying 20 American cities — with swarms of undetected nuclear-tipped drones mopping up — and space-bound nuclear detonations devastating civilian and military communications for years. Could any rational American president rely on such a defense in an actual crisis? Also, what if an American president, believing the rhetoric surrounding the Golden Dome, calculated that he or she could achieve American dominance through the threat or actual use of nuclear weapons — without fear of a nuclear response? As we became more isolated from allies and others around the world, the Golden Dome could help enclose us in a kind of gilded cage. Which brings us back to the cost. The Trump administration estimates the Golden Dome's price tag to reach $175 billion. Yet the Congressional Budget Office believes the space-based interceptors alone could cost more than $500 billion — equivalent to half of the annual defense budget. In a new era of federal spending, which will greatly expand our budget deficits while shrinking programs for our citizens most in need, the cost of the Golden Dome is unconscionable. Forty years ago, President Reagan proposed an ambitious, highly complex, missile defense system with space-based interceptors. Reagan's special advisor, Paul Nitze, declared that 'Star Wars' (as the media dubbed it) should be deployed only if the defense were effective, survivable and 'cost effective at the margins' — or in his words: 'They must be cheap enough to add additional defensive capability so that the other side has no incentive to add additional offensive capability to overcome the defense.' The Nitze criteria prevailed: Two successive U.S. administrations recast America's missile defenses to focus on short- and medium-range threats, not the immensely more capable threats from Russia and China. Over time, our missile defenses became more affordable, focused and effective — without the expense of space-based interceptors. The savings were applied to other defense and domestic priorities. And America became stronger still. A good lesson from the past. Steven Andreasen, who served as the National Security Council's staff director for defense policy and arms control from 1993 to 2001, teaches public policy at the University of Minnesota. Anthony Lake was a national security advisor in the Clinton administration.
Los Angeles Times
40 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Republicans look to reverse federal commitment to EVs for the Postal Service
WASHINGTON — A year after being lauded for its plan to replace thousands of aging, gas-powered mail trucks with a mostly electric fleet, the U.S. Postal Service is facing congressional attempts to strip billions in federal EV funding. In June, the Senate parliamentarian blocked a Republican proposal in President Trump's massive tax-and-spending bill to sell off the agency's new electric vehicles and infrastructure and revoke remaining federal money. But efforts to halt the fleet's shift to clean energy continue in the name of cost savings. Donald Maston, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Assn., said canceling the program now would have the opposite effect, squandering millions of dollars. 'I think it would be shortsighted for Congress to now suddenly decide they're going to try to go backwards and take the money away for the EVs or stop that process, because that's just going to be a bunch of money on infrastructure that's been wasted,' he said. Beyond that, many in the scientific community fear the government could pass on an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to global warming when urgent action is needed. A 2022 University of Michigan study found the new electric postal vehicles could cut total greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 million tons over the predicted, cumulative 20-year lifetime of the trucks. That's a fraction of the more than 6 billion metric tons emitted annually in the United States, said Professor Gregory A. Keoleian, co-director of the university's Center for Sustainable Systems. But he said the push toward electric vehicles is critical and needs to accelerate, given the intensifying effects of climate change. 'We're already falling short of goals for reducing emissions,' Keoleian said. 'We've been making progress, but the actions being taken or proposed will really reverse decarbonization progress that has been made to date.' Many GOP lawmakers share Trump's criticism of the Biden-era green energy push and say the Postal Service spending should focus only on delivering mail. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said that 'it didn't make sense for the Postal Service to invest so heavily in an all-electric force.' She said she will pursue legislation to rescind what is left of the $3 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act allocated to help cover the $10-billion cost of new postal vehicles. Ernst has called the EV initiative a 'boondoggle' and 'a textbook example of waste,' citing delays, high costs and concerns over cold-weather performance. 'You always evaluate the programs, see if they are working. But the rate at which the company that's providing those vehicles is able to produce them, they are so far behind schedule, they will never be able to fulfill that contract,' Ernst said during a recent appearance at the Iowa State Fair, referring to Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Defense. 'For now,' she added, 'gas-powered vehicles — use some ethanol in them — I think is wonderful.' Corn-based ethanol is a boon to Iowa's farmers, but the effort to reverse course has other Republican support. Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas), a co-sponsor of the rollback effort, has said the EV order should be canceled because the project 'has delivered nothing but delays, defective trucks and skyrocketing costs.' The Postal Service maintains that the production delay of the Next Generation Delivery Vehicles was 'very modest' and not unexpected. 'The production quantity ramp-up was planned for and intended to be very gradual in the early months to allow time for potential modest production or supplier issues to be successfully resolved,' spokesperson Kim Frum said. The independent, self-funded federal agency, which is paid for mostly by postage and product sales, is in the middle of a $40-billion, 10-year modernization and financial stabilization plan. The EV effort had the full backing of Democratic President Biden, who pledged to move toward an all-electric federal fleet of car and trucks. The 'Deliver for America' plan calls for modernizing the ground fleet, notably the Grumman Long Life Vehicle, which dates to 1987 and is very fuel-inefficient, at 9 mpg. The vehicles are well past their projected 24-year lifespan and are prone to breakdowns and even fires. 'Our mechanics are miracle workers,' said Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union. 'The parts are not available. They fabricate them. They do the best they can.' The Postal Service announced in 2022 it would deploy at least 66,000 electric vehicles by 2028, including commercial off-the-shelf models, after years of deliberation and criticism it was moving too slowly to reduce emissions. By 2024, the agency was awarded a Presidential Sustainability Award for its efforts to electrify the largest fleet in the federal government. In 2021, Oshkosh Defense was awarded a contract for up to 165,000 battery electric and internal combustion engine Next Generation vehicles over 10 years. The first of the odd-looking trucks, with hoods resembling a duck's bill, began service in Georgia last year. Designed for greater package capacity, the trucks are equipped with airbags, blind-spot monitoring, collision sensors, 360-degree cameras and antilock brakes. There's also a new creature comfort: air-conditioning. Douglas Lape, special assistant to the president of the National Assn. of Letter Carriers and a former carrier, is among numerous postal employees who have had a say in the new design. He marvels at how Oshkosh designed and built a new vehicle, transforming an old North Carolina warehouse into a factory along the way. 'I was in that building when it was nothing but shelving,' he said. 'And now, being a completely functioning plant where everything is built in-house — they press the bodies in there, they do all of the assembly — it's really amazing, in my opinion.' The agency has so far ordered 51,500 New Generation vehicles, including 35,000 battery-powered vehicles. To date, it has received 300 battery vehicles and 1,000 gas-powered ones. Then-Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said in 2022 the agency expected to purchase chiefly zero-emissions delivery vehicles by 2026. It still needs some internal combustion engine vehicles that travel longer distances. Frum, the Postal Service spokesperson, said the planned electric vehicle purchases were 'carefully considered from a business perspective' and are being deployed to routes and facilities where they will save money. The agency has also received more than 8,200 of 9,250 Ford E-Transit electric vehicles it has ordered, she said. Ernst said it's fine for the Postal Service to use EVs already purchased. 'But you know what? We need to be smart about the way we are providing services through the federal government,' she said. 'And that was not a smart move.' Maxwell Woody, lead author of the University of Michigan study, made the opposite case. Postal vehicles, he said, have low average speeds and a high number of stops and starts that enable regenerative braking. Routes average under 30 miles and are known in advance, making planning easier. 'It's the perfect application for an electric vehicle,' he said, 'and it's a particularly inefficient application for an internal combustion engine vehicle.' Haigh writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Hannah Fingerhut in Des Moines contributed to this report.
The Hill
40 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republican civil war erupts over earmarks in funding bills
The return of earmarks to the annual appropriations bills has sparked a battle among Republicans on Capitol Hill, pitting fiscal hawks against members of the Appropriations Committees and their allies. It's a serious battle and one that could scuttle the chances of passing appropriations bills ahead of the Sept. 30 government funding deadline. Republican responsibility for the huge federal deficit has become a hot political issue after President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is projected to add $3.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade, into law. Conservatives are deeply disappointed that Trump's bill did not make deeper cuts to federal spending, and they want to make a statement with significant reductions in the annual appropriations bills for fiscal 2026. Adding to the frustrations of fiscal hawks, those bills are already loaded with earmarks directing the Trump administration how to spend funds. Conservatives view the return of earmarks as a return to the days of pork-barrel spending and a bad look for Republicans when the party is taking fire from Democrats for exploding future deficits. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a leading conservative, argued that earmarks are still prohibited by Senate Republican conference rules, even though some members of the conference choose not to follow them. 'It's still prohibited by conference policy, and I think we need to stick to that,' Lee told The Hill. Lee said the proliferation of earmarks in the spending bills are 'incompatible with our approach as Republicans, and it's also incompatible with having $37 trillion in debt.' Some conservatives are pushing for Congress to pass a yearlong stop-gap spending measure that would freeze federal funding levels as a strategy to keep spending in check and the next wave of earmarks in limbo. Senate Republicans voted for a 'permanent ban' on earmarks in May 2019, when the proposal passed by a 28-12 vote after a heated debate behind closed doors. But earmarks have since made a big comeback. The House, then controlled by Democrats, voted in March 2021 to reverse an internal ban on earmarks. Senate Republicans, who were in the minority at the time, decided in April 2021 to stick with their conference pro forma ban on earmarks but left open a big loophole by allowing individual GOP senators to request money for home-state projects. That decision still rankles some Republicans years later. They believe they're in a position to change the rising tide of earmarks now that their party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) called the earmarks buried in the spending bills 'offensive.' 'It is offensive that I don't know what they are yet,' he said of earmarks. 'I'm asking my staff and we don't have the specifics on this. 'That's the problem. This stuff is all secret until you're ready to vote on it,' he added. Johnson has a proposal that would automatically rescind earmarks if lawmakers 'brag' about the millions of dollars in federal funding they're steering to projects back home in any kind of political context. Under his proposal, 'the only time members can talk about the earmarks, their congressionally directed spending, is as part of official Senate business — a hearing, a subcommittee hearing and on the floor,' he said. 'They can't then go out and brag about it in the media … if they do that, if they issue a press release, if they put it in a campaign ad, that spending gets automatically rescinded,' Johnson explained. Twenty-one Republican senators voted for Johnson's amendment when he offered it to the appropriations bill funding military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs, a bill that was expanded to fund the Department of Agriculture and the legislative branch. Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Lee were among the Republicans who voted for Johnson's proposal. The conservatives' backlash against earmarks in the package came after Punchbowl News reported that Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) loaded more than $810 million in earmarks and directed spending for Maine in the fiscal 2026 spending bills crafted by her committee. Collins, who faces a tough reelection battle next year, argues she has a better sense of her state's funding needs than unelected bureaucrats in Washington who otherwise would get to decide how to dole out federal funds without congressional guidance. Other Republicans are working hard behind the scenes to steer more money to their home states. More Republican senators have requested congressionally directed spending, aka earmarks, for the fiscal 2026 spending bills compared to last year. And earmarks have exploded in the Republican-controlled House. One Republican source familiar with the details of the spending bills noted House Republicans are also requesting more earmarks than they did last year and pointed out that Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.), an outspoken House conservative, has requested more than $55 million for his district. An analysis by Roll Call found House Republicans have packed the appropriations bills for next year with nearly $8 billion in earmarks. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) — the chair of the Senate Steering Committee who voted for Johnson's proposal to rescind earmarks if senators use them to score political points — said conservatives will make additional efforts to pull earmarks out of the spending bills and find other ways to reduce federal spending. 'Hopefully we have time to review the bills [and] not get rushed into votes on these things,' he said. 'We've got to understand we have a $2 trillion [annual] deficit, so we've got to get spending under control. That's what I'm going to try to do, and there are a lot of people in the same camp that I am.' Scott indicated he sees the battle against earmarks as part of a broader effort to curb federal spending after conservatives failed to include bigger spending reforms in Trump's megabill. 'People are doing everything they can to try to get spending under control,' he said. Lee, Johnson and Scott pushed an amendment to Trump's bill in June to reduce Medicaid spending by another $313 billion by preventing new enrollees in Medicaid expansion states from receiving the 9-to-1 enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentage if they are not disabled or don't have dependent children. They delayed a key procedural vote to advance the bill in hopes of gaining Republican support for the proposal, but despite assurances of help from Senate GOP leaders and Vice President Vance, the amendment didn't receive a vote.
