Never forget the evil done to the United States when Biden pardoned an accomplice to mass murder deeply involved in both the creation of the COVID-19 virus and bio-weapons development. Speculations surround his most likely profiteering from the various “pandemics” over the years, and the sudden jump in his family net worth after leaving Federal employment. To quote: “A pardon for ANY OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.” Think about that. The actual text of the pardon reads: I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, … HAVE GRANTED UNTO DR. ANTHONY S. FAUCI A FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL PARDON FOR ANY OFFENSES against the United States which he may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through the date of this pardon arising from or in any manner related to his service as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or the White House COVID-19 Response Team, or as Chief Medical Advisor to the President.”
Although many scholars believe that President Biden’s autopen signature and lack of cognitive function make the document invalid and that President Trump could invalidate the pardon with an executive order, I am not so sure that it would stand up in a court of law. Presidents signing with autopens or delegating the signing to subordinates has long been an accepted practice since Thomas Jefferson. Biden was never declared unfit for office while serving, so this is also unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. It’s worth a try, though, I suppose. The big legal issue with this pardon is that it is for crimes not named. The Constitution addresses presidential pardons in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, known as the Pardon Clause. The exact wording is: “Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
Does the wording above mean that a president can give a blanket pardon for any offenses against the United States, or do the offenses have to be named? The most notable example of a blanket pardon is President Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon. Ford granted Nixon “a full, free and absolute pardon… for all offenses against the United States which he… has committed or may have committed or taken part in” during his presidency. This pardon did not enumerate particular offenses. This blanket pardon was never challenged in a court of law. Therefore, a precedent was not set by the courts. Some like to point to President Jimmy Carter’s blanket pardon for Vietnam-era draft evaders as a precedent. However, that pardon specified a category of offense and was not a blanket pardon for crimes not enumerated. That said, this pardon was also never challenged in a court of law. As neither case was challenged in a court of law, many legal scholars still debate whether a pardon must specify offenses in detail. It seems to me that now is the time to question whether a blanket pardon for all crimes not enumerated reflects the framers’ intent when they wrote the Constitution. Of course, another, more straightforward solution would be for Congress to pass a law articulating what that phrase actually means. However, it is still up to the Supreme Court to determine the literal meaning of the Constitution. This principle was solidified in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which affirmed that “it is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”. While Congress’s interpretations can shape constitutional discussions and legislative actions, when the Constitution lacks clarity, the courts—particularly the Supreme Court—ultimately determine the meaning of constitutional phrases. That said, there may be an easier route to prosecute Anthony Fauci. The DOJ can work with state prosecutors to uncover crimes. If the DOJ, during a joint investigation, finds evidence of a crime that has been pardoned federally, that evidence can still be shared with state prosecutors. State authorities may use that evidence to pursue state charges, as the presidential pardon does not extend to state offenses. So, even if a presidential pardon blocks federal prosecution for the pardoned acts but does not shield the person from state prosecution, the DOJ can share evidence with state prosecutors if the conduct violates state law. The DOJ can investigate and acquire federal documents related to monetary misconduct, ethical breaches, and even manslaughter, which can then be shared with state attorneys general and prosecutors. Furthermore, that evidence could be shared with other governments. A final note: the COVIDcrisis made many people rich; they used psychological bioterrorism to scare government officials into reacting in ways that benefited those parties significantly. Yes, there is no debate that the COVID-19 crisis triggered what many analysts and organizations describe as the largest upward transfer of wealth in modern history. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States saw a dramatic upward transfer of wealth, primarily benefiting billionaires and the wealthiest households:
In summary: Conclusion: Fauci is the figurehead; he must be brought to justice, as must the other public officials, scientists, and physicians who profited enormously from the lies and half-truths. But in the end – many people and institutions need to be brought to justice for the damages done to the American people. It is the job of the FBI and the DOJ to determine how this upward money transfer happened in the United States during the COVIDcrisis and who benefited via illegal means. This includes government officials, politicians, scientists, big pharma, and hospital systems that have profited enormously. Which government officials wrote the policies that aided and abetted this upward transfer of wealth and why? This can not be swept under the rug as just another F/U by big government. We, the people, deserve answers. |
