Biden's Pardon-palooza-Will It Stand?

January 22, 2025–I have a new life goal: I want a blanket, preemptive Presidential Pardon for everything I may or may not have done, or for anything I may or may not do, from birth until death.

That’s not too much to ask for, is it? It wouldn’t even be much of a stretch, given the pardons Joe Biden handed out during the final hours of his Presidency.

Literally on his way out the door, old Joe pardoned several members of his family, the J6 Committee and staffers, General Milley and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

We’ve talked about the Biden Crime Family for years, and been poo-pop’d by the Left and their media lapdogs—and now it’s been confirmed. James, Sara J., Francis, John and Valerie Biden Owens all have gotten the slate wiped clean since January 1, 2014.

The J6 Committee and staffers now have been offered pardons for everything connected with their activities related to the J6 investigation. This includes Liz Cheney’s alleged witness tampering and destruction of files by committee members and staff. So, critical evidence related to what we now strongly suspect was a planned operation by Deep State parties to discredit President Trump and his supporters (and their claims of fraud in the 2020 election) has been destroyed, and the perps get a free pass.

General Milley said under oath that he told his Chinese counterpart he’d call him directly if America was going to attack China. The idea had been floated that President Trump could recall him to active service and court martial him for treason, but now that won’t happen.

And Dr. Fauci. What can I say about him, except that he needs to be the guest of honor at the Nuremberg 2.0 trials? Fauci now has a blanket pardon covering essentially all his professional activity in any capacity from January 1, 2014 until now.

Why January 1, 2014? Because Gain of Function research on corona- and other viruses to make them more effective and lethal was stopped in the U.S. in October of that year.

You know, that research that Fauci offshored to the Wuhan lab because it couldn’t be done here? Yes, THAT research, that may have given us the SARS-CoV-2 virus that we’ve had so much fun with these last few years.

2014 was also the year the CIA threw a color revolution in Ukraine, and who knows what involvement Fauci had with the bioweapons research labs over there. Or the Bidens, for that matter.

Needless to say, people aren’t happy about these pardons.

As I’ve written before, the power of the Presidential pardon is absolute and irrevocable. It must be, as “it’s the ultimate, final check against gross miscarriages of Justice.” I still believe that, even now. But, there may be some wiggle room with these.

Blanket and preemptive Presidential pardons, while rare, have been used before. Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned Richard Nixon before he was formally charged or convicted. Jimmy Carter gave a blanket pardon to Vietnam War draft dodgers in 1977. George H. W. Bush preemptively pardoned Casper Weinberger in 1992 before he could be brought to trial over Iran-Contra. There is precedent for Biden’s actions, just not at this scale. Also, none of these precedents were ever challenged in court, so SCOTUS has yet to rule on their constitutionality.

Will one or more of these pardons be challenged? I certainly hope so. I can see two main avenues of challenging all of them at once: one the basis of fraud, and on the basis of mental competence.

The fraud argument hinges on United States v Throckmorton (1878), where the Court held that “There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.” The Throckmorton doctrine, when applied to the overwhelming evidence of election fraud in 2020, would negate essentially every Executive action of the Biden administration. Political Moonshine would have this be combined with the COVID pandemic and both prosecuted as RICO cases, followed by applying Throckmorton to rip away all of Biden’s pardons.

As much as I think this is justified—and kudos to Political Moonshine for years of incredible work on the origins of COVID, among other things—I don’t see this as a likely outcome. We have too many Democrats and too many simpering Republicans who lack the intestinal fortitude to face up to the fact that the Presidency was stolen four years ago. They didn’t do it then, they haven’t done it since, and they won’t do it now. I can almost understand the Dems—too many of them would wind up wearing orange—but the Republicans? Revelation 3:16 comes to mind.

The mental competence argument is simply this: no legal document signed by an incompetent person is valid. No contract, will, advance directive, nothing—if they’re not “of sound mind” it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.

It’s obvious to this old shrink, even from a distance, that Joe’s mental status has been questionable for a while. We all saw it at the June 27th debate. Mike Johnson saw it at a meeting with Biden when Joe said he didn’t sign the liquid natural gas sales pause. The report about how staffers had to manage Biden from Wall Street Journal last month, what Rep. Ronny Johnson wondered about in 2022 and what Special Counsel Robert Hur said about Biden; these all point to a man who’s likely not competent to sign anything.

Figuring out if Biden is mentally competent right now is fairly straightforward. Every state has a way to do this. In Alabama, the mechanism is that someone (it doesn’t have to be family) files a Petition for Involuntary Commitment with the Probate Court. The Probate Judge then orders an inpatient evaluation. Joe needs the full dementia work up by an unbiased team, away from his handlers, including Dr. Jill. The evaluation is then presented to a judge to rule on competency or lack thereof. If Joe’s found incompetent now, he’s almost certainly been that way for a few weeks, which would wipe out most of December’s and January’s actions.

That would open up another can of worms. If Joe wasn’t competent, who was doing the writing and signing? How far back does it go? Who’s been running the country these past several months or years?

As difficult as the fraud/RICO/Throckmorton method might be, determining just exactly when Joe crossed the competence line might be more difficult. If I had to render an opinion, I’d say he hasn’t been competent since before his inauguration. Remember “what am I signing?” and “Salute the Marines.” Either way, it would force people to acknowledge that we’ve been in a rolling constitutional crisis for four years—and many of our Glorious Leaders were in on it!.

Sadly, I don’t see either of these happening. There are too many people with too much invested in blocking an undo/redo of the disastrous Biden years, and far too many weak, spineless, go-along-to-get-along “Republicans” who won’t stand up for what’s right.

Still, there is some hope of limiting these pardons, if not nullifying them outright. As I’ve mentioned, no blanket or preemptive pardon has ever been challenged. SCOTUS has never ruled on these concepts, but that may be about to change.

SCOTUS has already ruled on the substance, definition and process of pardons themselves. In Burdick v United States (1915), the Court held that “Acceptance, as well as delivery, of a pardon is essential to its validity; if rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, the court has no power to force it on him.” Furthermore, a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.”

Notably, the Court upheld Burdick’s right to refuse to testify (even though he had been given a Presidential pardon), affirming that the privilege against self-incrimination was not merely about avoiding punishment, but also about protecting personal dignity and reputation. The Court concluded that Burdick could not be compelled to testify, reversing the lower court decision that had held him in contempt for refusing to testify. The Court further held that even with immunity, one could still claim the privilege against self-incrimination if the testimony could expose one to “infamy“ or “public disgrace,“ which could harm one’s reputation or social standing.

A lot of legalese, but what does it mean? Simply:

-pardons must be accepted to be valid

-acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt

-acceptance of a pardon does not force one to testify about the pardoned act(s), and

-acceptance of a pardon does NOT nullify one’s ability to “plead the 5th”

I’ve been wrong about that last bit, but after looking into it more closely, I’m pretty sure it’s correct. All the people Joe pardoned can still plead the 5th if they’re dragged in and put under oath—for any crimes covered by the scope of the pardon.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Pardons don’t prohibit investigations. They don’t cover acts before the date specified, or after the pardon is issued. They certainly don’t cover perjury committed in future investigations, or future crimes—like ongoing profiting from illegal ventures.

And for everyone named in these pardons, there are many others who were not. Associates of the Bidens. Associates and staffers of Milley and Fauci. People who worked with them, who know what the secrets are and where the bodies are buried…and who have no pardon protecting them. Bring them in, put them under oath, and find out what they know—and look for information outside the scope of the pardon.

I’d also like to see the legality of these blanket, preemptive pardons challenged. A pardon presumes that a crime has been committed. Pardons traditionally name the crime to which they apply. It can be argued that without a charge or conviction, a pardon isn’t valid—and that argument must be made.

We should also remember that pardons are only for criminal acts. Everyone Biden pardoned is still liable for civil suits and damages—and in Fauci’s case, a few hundred Wrongful Death cases would more than wipe out his net worth.

Finally, let’s remember those who don’t have pardons: the Clintons. The Obamas. Old Joe Biden, and Dr. Jill herself.

Something to think about….

Yes, I know this is a long piece—you should have seen it before I took the weed whacker to it. I’ll make sure it’s loaded with reference links when I post it on my Substack (DocContrarian.Substack.com).

Dr. Bill Chitwood is a retired Child, Adolescent and Family Psychiatrist who does political consulting and media relations. He is the author of Beyond Maga, available on Amazon under his pen name, Doc Contrarian. He can be found on Substack and social media as @DocContrarian.

Opinions expressed in the Alabama Gazette are the opinions and viewpoints of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Alabama Gazette staff, advertisers, and/or publishers.