Fauci invokes the 5th Amendment privilege at the Senate hearing today.

I'm listening to the hearing live:

Here's the Washington Post article: "Fauci invokes Fifth Amendment in hearing before Rand Paul and Senate GOP/At a hearing on covid-19, the former infectious-disease official said he would avoid answering contentious questions" (gift link):

He declined to answer questions from [Senator Rand] Paul, who began the hearing by asking Fauci about the pandemic response and whether there was a folder in front of him on the table.

In a separate statement shared with The Post, Fauci’s lawyer alleged that Paul was fixated on Fauci after their clashes at the height of the pandemic — referring to a 2021 incident when the two men traded accusations of lying — and that the senator’s sole purpose for the hearing was to punish Fauci and see him in prison....

What about the pardon?

"I made every decision," says Joe Biden, but how would he know, and how could his statement ease our doubts?

The NYT reports on its 10-minute interview with Biden and tells us that "Mr. Biden said that he had orally granted all the pardons and commutations issued at the end of his term, calling President Trump and other Republicans 'liars' for claiming his aides had used an autopen to do so without his authorization."

So he's using the word "liars" without knowing if people are lying. It makes me want to just call him a liar and be done with it. If the aides were using the autopen somewhere outside of his presence, how would he necessarily know what they were doing? He's saying trust me — trust me or else I'll call you a liar.

The article continues: "'I made every decision,' Mr. Biden said in a phone interview on Thursday, asserting that he had his staff use an autopen replicating his signature on the clemency warrants because 'we’re talking about a whole lot of people.'"

How does he know he made every decision? We're not liars if we simply doubt that he had the mental capacity to know what was going on. What sort of decision-making was it? Am I a liar if I presume he did nothing more than rubber-stamp whatever was recommended by the staff?

"Just days after giving birth, she returned to work on the Trump campaign, saying she was motivated to forgo maternity leave following the July 13 assassination attempt..."

"I looked at my husband and said, 'Looks like I’m going back to work.... I felt compelled to be present in this historic moment,' she added. 'The president literally put his life on the line to win this election. The least I could do is get back to work quickly."

From "White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, 27, Addresses Her 'Atypical' 32-Year Age Gap with Husband/Leavitt tied the knot with husband Nicholas Riccio, 59, in January 2025 after welcoming son Niko in 2024" (People). Niko was born on July 10th. Baby (and wedding) pics at the link.

Here's Leavitt at yesterday's press conference. I've cued up the discussion of the auto-pen pardons:

Leavitt: "The president was begging the question that I think a lot of journalists in this room should be asking about whether or not not the former President of the United States — who I think we can all finally agree was cognitively impaired — I know it took people some time to finally admit that but, we all know that to be true, as evidenced by his disastrous debate performance against President Trump during the campaign — I digress on that — but the President was raising the point that: Did the President even know about these pardons? Was his legal signature used without his consent or knowledge?

"President Trump wrote on social media on Sunday night that he no longer considered valid the pardons his predecessor granted to members of the bipartisan House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol..."

"... and a range of other people whom Mr. Trump sees as his political enemies, because they were signed using an autopen device.... But Mr. Trump’s assertion, which embraced a baseless right-wing conspiracy theory about former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., was a new escalation of his antidemocratic rhetoric. Implicit in his post was Mr. Trump’s belief that the nation’s laws should be whatever he decrees them to be. And it was a jolting reminder that his appetite for revenge has not been sated."

The NYT reports.

The NYT writer — Shawn McCreesh — observes "There is no power in the Constitution or case law to undo a pardon, and there is no exception to pardons signed by autopen," but to say that is to look past the question whether there  was a pardon. Even if a pardon can't be undone, how do we know it was ever done? We have a piece of writing, signed by autopen, and maybe it can be shown to have originated within the White House. The power that is in the Constitution is given to "The President," so, interpreting that clause, one might question whether his hand must do the signing... and whether his mind comprehended what he was doing.

But I can't believe courts would entertain challenges like that. It's the ultimate can of worms. Consider the parallel problem in the exercise of power within the judicial branch. We assume that the judicial opinions that emerge from the usual channels are signed/"signed" by the judges whose names appear on them and that the judges minds made the decisions that appear in the words of the text. We may well suspect that law clerks wrote the some of the opinions and even that some of the judges don't understand "their" own opinions. But we accept that they are what they purport to be. Beyond that lies chaos.

ADDED: Here is Trump's post on Truth Social:

"They said, 'Sir, would you like to pardon everybody including yourself?' I said, 'I'm not going to pardon anybody. We didn't do anything wrong!'"

"And we had people that suffered, they're incredible patriots. We had people that suffered. We had Bannon put in jail, we had Peter Navarro put in jail. You had people that suffered, and far worse than that, they have lost their fortunes and whatever their nest egg — paying it to lawyers. People have said they wouldn't have even taken a pardon. This guy went around giving everyone pardons. And, you know, the funny thing (maybe the sad thing) is he didn't give himself a pardon — and if you look at it, it all had to do with him."

Said Trump, in a clip from an interview with Sean Hannity that will air tonight. Video at link.

"Beyond the effect the pardons and commutations will have on the lives of those who received them, they also served Mr. Trump’s mission of rewriting the history of Jan. 6."

"Throughout his presidential campaign and after he won the election, he has tried repeatedly to play down the violent nature of the Capitol attack and reframe it, falsely, as a 'day of love.'... As a legal matter, the pardons and commutations effectively unwound the largest single criminal inquiry the Justice Department has undertaken in its 155-year history. They wiped away all of the charges that had already been brought and the sentences already handed down while also stopping any new cases from moving forward. Starting virtually from the moment the Capitol was breached, investigators spent more than four years obtaining warrants for thousands of cellphones and Google accounts, scrolling through tens of thousands of hours of police body-camera and surveillance camera footage, and running down hundreds of thousands of tips from ordinary citizens.... Mr. Trump appears to have decided to grant an expansive form of clemency relatively recently and after a debate among his advisers.... A few weeks ago, Vice President JD Vance said... 'If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned,' Mr. Vance said, but... Mr. Vance’s comments elicited almost immediate outrage among many of the rioters... ... Philip Anderson, who was accused of taking part in a violent scrum in a tunnel outside the Capitol, wrote on social media. 'All J6 defendants need to be saved.'..."

From "Trump Grants Sweeping Clemency to All Jan. 6 Rioters/The extraordinary pardons and commutations extended to those who committed both violent and nonviolent crimes on Jan. 6, including assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy" (NYT).

The Biden administration went big and then Trump went big. Biden could have shown mercy and aimed to bring Americans together, but he chose to be as punitive as possible. And this is after so much tolerance and forgiveness was shown to the Black Lives Matter rioters, to those crossing the border illegally, and to his political cronies and family matters. In that light, I have nothing negative to say about Trump's sweeping magnanimity.

"Biden pardons Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley and the Jan. 6 committee in an extraordinary use of presidential power against potential Trump 'revenge.'"

AP reports.

“The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense,” Biden said in a statement. “Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country.”

It’s customary for a president to grant clemency at the end of his term, but those acts of mercy are usually offered to everyday Americans who have been convicted of crimes. But Biden has used the power in the broadest and most untested way possible: to pardon those who have not even been investigated yet.... 

Among the pardoned is Liz Cheney.

ADDED: Here's Biden's statement.

Biden tried to make it clear to Trump that there was no need for him "go back and try to settle scores."

From Joe Biden's interview with Susan Page of USA Today:

PAGE: Some of your supporters have encouraged you to issue preemptive pardons to people like Liz Cheney and Anthony Fauci, who Trump has threatened to target. Will you do that?

BIDEN: ... I was very straightforward with Trump when he got elected.... I tried to make it clear that there was no need, and it was counterintuitive for his interest to go back and try to settle scores.

PAGE: And did he give you an answer on what he was going to do?

BIDEN: Well, he didn't. But he didn't say, "No, I'm going to..." You know. He didn't reinforce it. He just basically listened....

So Biden failed to extract anything from Trump, and Trump was poker faced.

Liz Cheney looks so uncomfortable receiving this medal from President Biden.

I like the way he gives it to her, then pulls it away, and she lets him and waits for him to get around to handing it back. What is she thinking? Who can know? Perhaps: Is this instead of a pardon or are you coming through with that pardon too?

I presume that everyone can see that a pardon for Liz Cheney — whom Trump said "should go to jail" — would benefit Trump. It must be hard to decide whether (over)protecting Cheney is important enough to be worth forgoing depriving Trump of that benefit.

"Merry Christmas to the Radical Left Lunatics..."

"... who are constantly trying to obstruct our Court System and our Elections, and are always going after the Great Citizens and Patriots of the United States but, in particular, their Political Opponent, ME. They know that their only chance of survival is getting pardons from a man who has absolutely no idea what he is doing. Also, to the 37 most violent criminals, who killed, raped, and plundered like virtually no one before them, but were just given, incredibly, a pardon by Sleepy Joe Biden. I refuse to wish a Merry Christmas to those lucky 'souls' but, instead, will say, GO TO HELL! We had the Greatest Election in the History of our Country, a bright light is now shining over the U.S.A. and, in 26 days, we will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

Said Trump, yesterday, on Truth Social.

"Biden did the right thing granting clemency to 37 federal death row inmates."

Writes Russ Feingold (at The Hill).

With this courageous action, President Biden has lived up to his promise as the first president to openly oppose capital punishment and secured his legacy as a champion of racial justice, compassion, and fairness.

If he's truly opposed to capital punishment, he should have commuted the sentences of all 40 federal death row inmates. That would have taken more courage. The 3 excluded from this show of empathy were the 3 most famous. Applying principle to them would have kicked up a much bigger political storm. So where is the principle?

President Biden has shown clear moral leadership by commuting these 37 federal death sentences. Not only does this action effectively fulfill his 2020 promise to end the death penalty at the federal level, it should also serve as a model and an incentive for state leaders to follow suit.

No. The "37" says it all. You need to save all 40 before you can claim "clear moral leadership." The real test would be sparing those last 3: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Robert Bowers, and Dylann Roof.

That would be difficult. That would take courage.

Biden just commuted "most federal death sentences" — that is, 37 of them — but in all this mercy, he left 3 men doomed.

I'm reading "Biden commutes most federal death sentences before Trump takes office/Thirty-seven inmates will serve life without parole. Three others, involved in cases of 'terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder,' still face execution" (WaPo)(free-access link).

Who were the 3? 

Those he did not spare are: Dylann Roof, the white supremacist convicted of killing nine Black parishioners at a South Carolina church in 2015; Robert Bowers, who carried out the country’s deadliest antisemitic attack when he killed 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018; and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber.

What made those 3 stand out in that collection of 40 murderers? Oddly enough, the link on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev goes to at 2020 article titled, "Death sentence overturned for Boston Marathon bomber." Bowers and Roof are alike in that their victims were chosen based on the group they belonged to and the killings took place in a house of worship. But what makes Tsarnaev like them?

What puts the 3 in one set is their fame. Anything else? Who were the 37 who received commutations? It's easier to spare nobodies.

Biden is, it seems, trying to rack up achievements. (Did you hear the one about the Equal Rights Amendment?) Should he be doing that after we've learned so much about how not there he is these days? His party has been voted out, he's already gone, and we don't know who is acting in his name. That's the real outrage here.

"A traditionalist to his bones, Mr. Biden has opted for the grace and reticence he believes are befitting the departing president of a defeated party..."

"... even as the incoming president threatens to imprison opponents and tries to install conspiracy-minded acolytes in positions of power.... At this stage of Mr. Biden’s presidency... his public messaging is targeted and restrained. Once Washington’s most loquacious chatterbox, Mr. Biden these days barely engages with the reporters who follow him everywhere. He has held no news conferences and conducted no interviews with the traditional news media since the election, though he has done some podcasts. His only reply to shouted questions from journalists during his entire Africa trip added up to 14 words. In South America, it was just a single word. As a result, Mr. Biden has not once publicly addressed his much-criticized decision to pardon his son since the written statement he released, nor has he discussed his consideration of blanket pardons for adversaries of Mr. Trump to protect them from his promised campaign of 'retribution' once he takes office...."

From "A Weary Biden Heads for the Exit/Still stinging from the election, President Biden is pushing for his final priorities but has absented himself from the national conversation about Donald Trump after warning repeatedly that he was a threat to American democracy" (NYT).

"Former Representative Liz Cheney colluded with 'star witness' Cassidy Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge."

"Former Representative Liz Cheney should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering based on the new information about her communication. Cassidy Hutchinson’s most outrageous claims lacked any evidence, and the Select Committee had knowledge that her claims were false when they publicly promoted her. President Trump did not attack his Secret Service Detail at any time on January 6. President Trump did not have intelligence indicating violence on the morning of January 6. Cassidy Hutchinson falsely claimed to have drafted a handwritten note for President Trump on January 6. Representative Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson baselessly attempted to disbar Hutchinson’s former attorney...."

From "Chairman Loudermilk Releases Second January 6, 2021 Report" released this morning.

Is it too soon to add my "Biden pardons" tag?

"In the manifesto, called 'War Against Humanity,' the author writes that they have 'grown to hate people, and society' and calls their parents 'scum.'"

"The author also writes that they acquired weapons 'by lies and manipulation, and my father's stupidity' and describes wanting to die by suicide, but feeling like carrying out a shooting was 'better for evolution rather than just one stupid boring suicide.'"

Writes Newsweek, in "Natalie Rupnow's Reported Manifesto: What We Know" (about the school shooting that took place in my city yesterday).

The use of the word "scum" in a manifesto makes me think of "SCUM Manifesto," a 1967 feminist document. I discussed it back in 2017, when Facebook was banning some women who wrote about men as "scum." The "SCUM Manifesto" begins: "'Life' in this 'society' being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of 'society' being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex."

And yet, this new manifesto — what I'm seeing of it, anyway — uses the language of gender neutrality: "Humanity... people... society... parents." There is, however, "father." I see that Newsweek is using they/them pronouns for the killer.

Newsweek also reports President Joe Biden's hasty response: "We need Congress to act. Now. From Newtown to Uvalde, Parkland to Madison.... Congress must pass commonsense gun safety laws: Universal background checks. A national red flag law. A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines...."

But when he pardoned his son Hunter for violating existing gun laws, Joe Biden attacked the prosecution as unfair and biased. One might have thought he'd refrain from calling for more gun laws when he so recently and conspicuously treated a gun law as not justifying enforcement. And yet didn't we all expect it — expect that next time there's a school shooting, Joe would indignantly cry out for more gun laws? #hypocrisy

"Though Mr. Biden has the prerogative to confer broad immunity with what are sometimes called safe harbor or protective pardons, doing so now on a large scale would be difficult to achieve..."

"... at least with any principled consistency.... [E]ven the broadest presidential pardon couldn’t fully protect someone Mr. Trump was determined to harass. His IRS could engage in selective audits. The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division could scrutinize someone’s business. Without the protection of the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination, congressional Republicans could subpoena beneficiaries of the pardons. The hearings that followed would be perjury traps — and Mr. Biden’s pardons could not cover future crimes. Conservative prosecutors in Republican-run states could try to contrive local charges...."

So writes the Washington Post Editorial Board, in "Biden should rule out preemptive pardons/Trump might target his enemies, but get-out-of-jail-free cards are unnecessary and imply guilt."

And I'll just put this here:

Oh Gary, how could you do this to me? 🥹 pic.twitter.com/OoooQI77ZS

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 12, 2024

What are the downsides of granting blanket pardons of the sort Biden is considering?

Isaac Chotiner asks lawprof Rachel Barkow, in "Are Blanket Pardons for Officials on Donald Trump’s Target List a Good Idea?/As the Biden Administration considers granting clemency to officials singled out by Trump, a legal scholar explains the advantages and pitfalls of extending such protections" (The New Yorker).

Barkow responds:

Trump doesn't want to be "like Joe Biden," who makes promises and then breaks them.

Here are 2 examples from yesterday's "Meet the Press" — transcript here — of Trump answering a question and weaving in a criticism of Biden. 

Was he just taking advantage of a perceived opportunity to take a shot at Biden, or does he have some genuine concern about not making any absolute promises that he might not want to keep (either because he respects the truth or because he wants to keep his options open and to deprive his opponents of the ability to attack him as liar (which they always do))?

EXAMPLE #1: Asked if he'd commit to refraining using executive action — without Congress — to restrict access to "medication abortions," Trump said:

Well, I commit. I mean, are -- things do -- things change. I think they change. I hate to go on shows like Joe Biden, “I’m not going to give my son a pardon. I will not under any circumstances give him a pardon.” I watched this and I always knew he was going to give him a pardon. And so, I don’t like putting myself in a position like that. So things do change. But I don’t think it’s going to change at all....

EXAMPLE #2: Asked if he's going to fire FBI director, Christopher Wray, he said:

Well, I can’t say I’m thrilled with him. He invaded my home. I’m suing the country over it. He invaded Mar-a-Lago. I’m very unhappy with the things he — he’s done, and crime is at an all time high. Migrants are pouring into the country that are from prisons and from mental institutions, as we’ve discussed. I can’t say I’m thrilled. I don’t want to say -- I don’t want to, again, I don’t want to be Joe Biden and give you an answer and then do the exact opposite... so I’m not going to do that. What I’m going to say is I certainly cannot be happy with him....

Succinct perfection in hypocrisy.

The most overpaid actress ever. pic.twitter.com/2tx3PqdA8c

— MAZE (@mazemoore) December 6, 2024

"Trump’s allies already pounced on the Hunter Biden pardon as evidence of their wilder allegations about the elder Biden’s own culpability in his son’s."

"There’s no doubt they would again spin additional pardons as validation for Trump's bogus claims that he has long been a victim of hoaxes, witch hunts, and 'deep-state' political attacks."

Writes Eric Lutz, in "Pardoning Trump’s Enemies Is a Double-Edged Sword/By offering preemptive pardons to the likes of Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff, Joe Biden might rescue them for legal retribution. But Trump would falsely use it as evidence that they committed crimes" (Vanity Fair).

It's always amusing to Democrats' problems phrased in terms of Republicans "pouncing" on them, and I like that the person writing "pounce" is named "Lutz" — both a pounce and a lutz are jumps.