Bill Clinton was on The View today and was asked: “Do you think it would be wise of President Biden to preemptively pardon any potential targets? What about your wife?” It’s actually a tough question. One of those double-binds where you have trouble if you say Yes and you also have trouble if you say No. So Bill chose to defiantly say (with a straight face) that Hillary did nothing wrong! And he even got kind of mad about it. Watch here: Bill Clinton, on The View, is asked, “Do you think it would be wise of President Biden to preemptively pardon any potential targets? What about your wife?” With a straight face and everything, Clinton says, “They’ve got a problem with her because, first, she didn’t do anything… pic.twitter.com/7QLPrLG1yO — Melissa Hallman (@dotconnectinga) December 11, 2024 He went on to call it a “Fool’s Errand” to waste time trying to get even. Oh, I get it Bill…. After President Trump chose NOT to prosecute Hillary despite a mandate to “Lock Her Up” — choosing the high road instead — and then Democrats chose to spend the last 4 years applying every form of lawfare known to man against President Trump in return…..that was all ok, but now we should all just shift to “don’t waste your time trying to get even.” Pretty hilarious! The View Asks Bill Clinton If Hillary Should Be Preemptively Pardoned “It’s normally a fool’s errand to spend a lot of time trying to get even”pic.twitter.com/rpIvQp0yDR — Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) December 11, 2024 You can watch the full segment here (if you can stomach it): .@BillClinton on if his wife Hillary should be considered for a preemptive pardon: “If Pres. Biden wanted to talk to me about that, I would talk to him about it, but I don’t think I should be giving public advice on the pardon power. I think… it’s a very personal thing.” pic.twitter.com/WY1VfOwRvg — The View (@TheView) December 11, 2024 What are your thoughts? Meanwhile, people are still calling the Hunter Biden pardon unprecedented on its own: NEW: Pardon attorneys and historians confirm Biden’s pardon of his felon son Hunter, which includes crimes uncharged over an 11-year span, is the most sweeping and unconditional in US history, broader even than the Nixon pardon. Here’s the actual language:https://t.co/5lus5d4sq0 — Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) December 3, 2024 Potentially creating new and even bigger challenges: Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter opens up potential new legal problems: Napolitano FULL INTERVIEW: https://t.co/OJRpLCJnBf pic.twitter.com/vyDphLyFWj — Gerald Celente (@geraldcelente) December 5, 2024 And some are seeing a new wave of sweeping, preemptive pardons may be Unconstitutional: If you go back and research the topic of Presidential pardons from the time period of Trump’s first term, there is a bunch of leftist research explaining why Biden’s apparent blanket pardon of Hunter shouldn’t and wouldn’t cover any of their Burisma quid pro quo shenanigans. https://t.co/ILwkKNVvbe pic.twitter.com/WO9jsSK0Vm — Jon Herold (@patel_patriot) December 2, 2024 The argument that President Joe Biden issuing mass preemptive pardons for everyone in his administration could be deemed unconstitutional involves several legal considerations: Scope of Pardon Power: The Constitution grants the President the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment” (Article II, Section 2). While this power is broad, it has traditionally been interpreted to apply to specific offenses known to the law. Issuing preemptive pardons for unspecified future crimes could be seen as extending beyond this traditional understanding, effectively nullifying the checks and balances inherent in the legal system. The historical precedent, such as Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, was for specific acts related to Watergate, not for any potential future crime. Precedent and Judicial Interpretation: Legal scholars and historical precedents suggest that pardons are generally understood to apply to offenses that have already been committed or at least identified. The Supreme Court case Ex parte Garland (1866) affirmed that the power of the pardon is unlimited except in cases of impeachment but did not extend to pardons for acts not yet committed or even specified. There’s a significant difference between pardoning known offenses and creating a blanket shield for hypothetical future crimes, which could be seen as an abuse of executive power. Separation of Powers: A mass issuance of preemptive pardons could infringe on the separation of powers. By potentially immunizing his administration from judicial scrutiny, Biden would be preempting the judicial branch’s role in determining guilt or innocence. This could be interpreted as an unconstitutional expansion of executive authority, effectively allowing the President to control what should be the independent operation of the judiciary. Potential for Abuse: The argument against such pardons also rests on the potential for abuse, where future administrations might use this as a precedent to protect themselves from accountability, thereby undermining the rule of law. If every administration could preemptively pardon its members for any future legal action, it would fundamentally alter the balance of power and the accountability mechanisms established by the Constitution. Constitutional Intent: The framers of the Constitution did not explicitly provide for the use of pardons to prevent prosecution of future, unspecified crimes. The intent was likely to provide mercy or correct judicial errors for offenses already committed, not to shield administration members from potential future legal accountability. This broad application of the pardon power could be argued to contradict the spirit and intent of the constitutional design. Legal Challenges: Should such pardons be issued, they might face legal challenges where the courts would have to interpret whether this use of the pardon power aligns with constitutional principles. While no such challenge has directly tested this scenario, the implications could lead to a Supreme Court decision questioning the constitutionality based on the above arguments. In conclusion, while the President’s pardon power is broad, the issuance of mass preemptive pardons for unspecified future actions could be seen as stretching this power beyond its intended scope, potentially nullifying legal accountability and thus infringing on the separation of powers and the rule of law established by the Constitution.