Newly uncovered documents reveal a potential constitutional kerfuffle over former President Joe Biden’s last-minute mass pardons that could make even the most seasoned D.C. insider raise an eyebrow.
According to Fox News, reports from the Oversight Project to Fox News Digital highlight serious questions about the legality of over 2,500 pardons and commutations issued by Biden, with career Justice Department officials sounding the alarm over an unorthodox process.
These documents, originally from the Trump-era DOJ, show a flurry of concern between Biden’s White House staff and career officials as the pardons were rolled out in a breathtaking final act.
One career prosecutor didn’t mince words, warning Biden’s inner circle that the process was not just unconventional but legally dubious.
On Jan. 18, then-Assistant Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer fired off an email to executive office staff, questioning the sheer volume of over 2,500 clemency grants.
Weinsheimer pointed out 19 “highly problematic” cases in a limited review, including convicts like Terrence Richardson and Ferrone Claiborne, whose life sentences for drug trafficking involved a police officer’s death and sparked fierce objections from victims’ families.
Perhaps most startling is the revelation that many of these pardon warrants were signed with an autopen, leaving some to wonder if Biden even laid eyes on the specifics.
The DOJ also fretted over the “vague” nature of the pardons, with unclear criteria and descriptions of offenses sourced from a U.S. Sentencing Commission spreadsheet, lacking any detailed explanation.
Adding fuel to the fire, there’s concern about an apparent delegation of authority to staff, a move that could be seen as an illegal overstep since only the president holds the power to grant pardons.
Weinsheimer didn’t hold back, stating, “I think you should stop saying that,” when addressing the White House’s claim that these were merely non-violent drug offenders. Let’s be real—calling a list with convicted murderers “non-violent” is a stretch that would make a yoga instructor blush.
He also pleaded for clarity, saying, “I think it best that we receive a statement or direction from the President as to the meaning of the warrant language.” Without that, how can anyone be sure what was intended?
Legal expert Kyle Brosnan echoed the confusion, noting, “You've got murderers on your list today.” If the president’s team can’t define the scope, it’s no surprise the DOJ felt like they were navigating a legal minefield.
Biden, for his part, defended the clemency push as a way to correct “historic wrongs” tied to outdated drug sentencing laws like the crack versus powder cocaine disparity. Noble intentions, perhaps, but when the process looks this sloppy, it’s hard to take the moral high ground seriously.
The idea of categorical pardons—where Biden signed off on broad eligibility standards rather than individual names—might sound efficient, but it risks turning a sacred presidential power into a bureaucratic rubber stamp. If staff are picking who fits the mold, conservatives might rightly ask: where’s the accountability?
While addressing sentencing disparities is a cause many can empathize with, the execution here—with autopen signatures and vague warrants—leaves a bitter taste, suggesting a rush job over thoughtful justice. It’s a reminder that good intentions don’t excuse cutting constitutional corners, and the American people deserve better than a pardon process that looks like it was scribbled on a napkin.
