the Conservative TAKE
Politics • Culture • News
Presidential Pardons: Why Biden, Hunter, and the January 6 Committee Aren't Entirely Off the Hook
January 21, 2025
post photo preview
revised 1/21/25 08:27am EST

On prior to leaving office, President Joe Biden issued several preemptive pardons, including for prominent individuals such as General Mark Milley, Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci and members of the January 6 Committee. These pardons were intended to protect them from potential prosecutions under the incoming administration. However, this action raises significant legal and ethical questions about the power of pardons and their limitations.


What is a Presidential Pardon?

A presidential pardon is a power granted by the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 2. It allows the President to forgive someone for a federal crime, shielding them from federal punishment. The pardon can even be issued before charges are filed, a practice known as a preemptive pardon.

One notable example is President Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon for any federal crimes he might have committed during the Watergate scandal, even though Nixon had not been formally charged.


Does Accepting a Pardon Mean Guilt?

Yes, in a way. The Supreme Court in Burdick v. United States (1915) held that accepting a pardon implies an admission of guilt. Even if someone hasn’t been convicted or formally charged, taking a pardon suggests they acknowledge the possibility of their guilt. This interpretation carries substantial weight, even if it’s not a formal legal confession.


The January 6 Committee and Deleted Evidence

Reports have surfaced alleging that members of the January 6 Committee, including Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney, deleted or withheld evidence related to their investigation. If these allegations are true, the legal implications could be severe:

  1. Destruction of Evidence: Deleting or tampering with evidence may violate federal laws, such as those prohibiting obstruction of justice or evidence tampering.
  2. Congressional Oversight: Congress can investigate allegations of misconduct, even against former members. While impeachment is no longer possible for non-members, findings can lead to criminal referrals.
  3. State Prosecutions: Federal pardons do not protect individuals from being prosecuted at the state level for crimes like tampering with evidence. If evidence destruction occurred within a state’s jurisdiction, state prosecutors could pursue charges independently.

What About Biden’s Role?

President Biden did not pardon himself, which means he remains open to investigation or prosecution if evidence of wrongdoing emerges. If Congress or prosecutors determine he misused his power—such as by issuing pardons to shield allies from accountability—there are several potential legal paths:

  • Criminal Prosecution: Biden could face federal charges like obstruction of justice or abuse of power if evidence supports such claims.
  • State-Level Charges: If his actions violated state laws, state prosecutors could file charges.
  • Congressional Investigation: Congress has the authority to investigate former Presidents and refer their findings to federal or state prosecutors.

Hunter Biden’s Pardons

Hunter Biden was among those pardoned by President Biden. While this protects him from federal charges, it does not shield him from state prosecutions or civil lawsuits. For example, if Hunter committed state-level financial crimes, states like New York or Delaware could still bring charges. Similarly, if his actions caused harm to others, civil lawsuits could proceed regardless of the pardon.


Limits of a Presidential Pardon

While the pardon power is significant, it has clear boundaries:

  1. Federal Crimes Only: Pardons only apply to federal offenses and do not affect state or local charges.
  2. Civil Liability: A pardon does not protect against civil lawsuits. For instance, if someone’s actions caused harm, victims can still sue them for damages.

Why This Matters

The presidential pardon is a powerful tool meant to promote justice and mercy, not to enable wrongdoing or shield illegal actions. Misusing this power undermines the rule of law. However, there are mechanisms to hold people accountable: state prosecutions, congressional investigations, and criminal charges for actions beyond the pardon’s scope.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Burdick reminds us that accepting a pardon carries an implicit acknowledgment of guilt. As the implications of these preemptive pardons unfold, it is essential to ensure that no one—whether a President, their allies, or family members—is above the law.

 


Citations

  1. Constitutional Authority for Pardons

    • U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2:
      The President “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
      Link to Constitution
  2. Historical Use of Preemptive Pardons

    • Gerald Ford’s Pardon of Richard Nixon (1974):
      Ford’s announcement and reasoning behind pardoning Nixon for any crimes he “committed or may have committed.”
      Gerald R. Ford Library
  3. Supreme Court Case on Pardons

    • Burdick v. United States (1915):
      The case established that accepting a pardon implies an admission of guilt.
      Case Summary and Opinion
  4. Limits of Pardons: Federal vs. State Prosecutions

    • The distinction between federal and state crimes and the inability of federal pardons to shield individuals from state prosecution.
      Example: Paul Manafort’s state charges after receiving a federal pardon.
      Brookings Institution Report
  5. Congressional Investigations and Oversight

  6. Deleted Evidence Allegations: January 6 Committee

    • Reports of evidence tampering by members of the January 6 Committee, including Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney.
      [Source: News Articles and Public Testimonies]
      Example reporting: New York Post
  7. State Prosecutions and Civil Liability

    • Explanation of how state-level prosecutors can charge individuals for offenses outside federal jurisdiction.
      Example: State charges against individuals following federal pardons.
      National Association of Attorneys General
  8. Hunter Biden and Civil Suits

    • Hunter Biden’s legal issues and potential civil liability, including investigations into financial dealings.
      Example Reporting: Politico
  9. Supreme Court on Accountability of Presidents


 

community logo
Join the the Conservative TAKE Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Odds of Love: A Probability Study Proving Jasmine Crockett’s Race Baiting Ignores the Real Challenges of Finding a Conservative Black Match

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent criticism of Representative Byron Donalds for marrying a white woman highlights a regressive mindset steeped in ignorance and racial bias, casting doubt on her ability to engage with the diverse realities of American life.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1906302926571618409

By implying that Donalds has been “whitewashed” through his interracial marriage, Crockett clings to outdated stereotypes that dictate racial loyalty over personal agency, exposing her own hypocrisy in advocating for equality while policing others’ private choices. This narrow perspective stands in stark contrast to the evolving dynamics of relationships across racial lines, as evidenced by a probabilistic analysis of partner selection among conservative Black individuals. To illustrate the complexity of such dynamics, consider the following study estimating the likelihood of a conservative Black man finding and marrying a conservative Black woman who aligns with his values—a scenario Crockett might deem more “acceptable,” yet one fraught with its own...

00:00:46
00:01:20
Biblical Citizenship in Modern America Commentary Ep14 - Understanding the Times 3

00:00 Introduction
02:03 Week 13 review
04:56 Our Current Education System
05:59 Six Verbs for Advancing Truth in the Country
09:08 What Our Elected Officials Don't Know About America
10:44 The Foundation of Law
12:12 Who Were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence?
13:52 Benjamin Rush
15:44 What is Patriotism?
18:34 Summary of Workbook

00:25:36

Just my opinion, but it seems like a lot of people are grifting off Charlie Kirk’s memory for clicks. I’m not saying everyone, and shoot, I could probably be accused of the same thing. Fair point. My team is waiting for at least the funeral before putting out a full load of content... but the former just doesn’t feel right. Full disclosure: I did a one-hour livestream that night and was a guest on another show a few days later, but that’s about it.

I truly appreciate the sincere takes from people who’ve had the courage to speak. So all I’m really asking for is discernment and tastefulness, at least until after the funeral. But that’s just me, and just my opinion.

What I do know is this: The Left is already spinning (and distracting away from) this. I submit that are trying desperately to ease their guilt, undermine Charlie’s vision, and divide MAGA. They are trying to save their (soon to be out of power for the foreseeable future) Democrat Party.

The real takeaway is...

🧨 The Deep State’s Attempt to Spin Damning Declassified Evidence

As declassified documents continue to expose what appears to be a coordinated intelligence operation against Donald Trump, the Deep State and their media allies are in full damage-control mode.

Case in point: Fox News just featured an op-ed by former CIA officer and Biden State Department spokesman Ned Price, attempting to “debunk” the bombshells released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Make no bones about it, this isn’t an objective counterpoint. This is a narrative-management operation by a career Deep State insider.

🕵️‍♂️ Here’s What They’re Trying to Sell You:
That Obama couldn’t have led a coup because… he congratulated Trump after the election. (Yes, seriously.)

That Gabbard is using “sleight of hand” and “conflating” terms, even though her claims are backed by declassified U.S. intelligence.

That the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was sound , even though multiple internal reviews, the Durham Report, and Senate oversight found evidence it was politicized.

That the ...

post photo preview
Why Subpoena Them If They’ll Plead the Fifth? Because It’s Protocol for Prosecution.

Here is what many do not understand. I get the frustration but there is a method to the madness. Let me explain.

Subpoenaing Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and others over the RussiaGate scandal (even if they ultimately plead the Fifth) is not just a procedural move; it’s a necessary step in any serious pursuit of justice and public accountability.

🔹 Why Subpoena Them?

1. Establish the Record:

You must formally bring these individuals under oath to compel their testimony. Whether they answer or invoke the Fifth, the act of subpoenaing is essential to build the official record and demonstrate due diligence in investigating the alleged conspiracy.

2. Indictment Requires Precedent:

Before a prosecutor can credibly seek an indictment (especially against former high-level officials) there must be an evidentiary trail. That includes prior sworn testimony or refusal to testify. Subpoenaing them is a legal and political prerequisite to indictments.

3. Public Opinion Matters:

...

post photo preview
post photo preview
Census and Gerrymandering: How the GOP Is Fighting Back
UPDATED - 8/15/25 7:55am

America is standing at the edge of a political earthquake. It’s not just about one executive order, one census, or one round of redistricting. What’s unfolding is the culmination of decades of partisan maneuvering, demographic shifts, and constitutional disputes (and the results could permanently change the balance of power in Washington).

At the center of the storm is a startling admission: the U.S. Census Bureau overcounted several Democrat-leaning states in 2020, while undercounting Republican-leaning states. According to the Bureau’s own post-enumeration survey, these errors handed Democrats an estimated five extra congressional seats (and the electoral college votes that go with them) at the direct expense of red states like Florida and Texas.

Even more frustrating to many Americans, the Bureau insists the “oops” must stand until the next census numbers are applied in 2032. That’s nearly a decade of political power built on faulty data.

Trump’s Bold Countermove

President Donald J. Trump has decided that’s unacceptable. On August 7, 2025, he instructed the Commerce Department to conduct a new, highly accurate mid-decade census (one that excludes illegal aliens from the population count used for congressional apportionment and electoral college allocation).

Trump’s rationale rests on both constitutional and practical grounds. The Constitution requires an “actual Enumeration,” not statistical guesswork, and certainly not a count that inflates the representation of states with large populations of non-citizens. Under this new approach, red states like Texas and Florida could gain multiple seats, while blue strongholds like California, New York, and Illinois could see their delegations shrink.

Analysts estimate that excluding illegal aliens from the count could shift up to 14 seats from blue states to red states. California alone might lose four House seats. Florida and Texas could each gain four. The ripple effects on the Electoral College would be seismic, potentially locking Democrats out of a 270-vote path even if they won every “blue wall” state.

The Hypocrisy of Gerrymandering

While Democrats howl that this is an “attack on democracy,” they’ve long played the very same game in reverse. In fact, some of the most egregious gerrymanders in modern history exist in deep-blue states:

  • Massachusetts: Republicans make up 36% of voters but hold zero congressional seats.

  • Connecticut: 42% Republican, zero seats.

  • Maine: 46% Republican, zero seats.

  • New Mexico: 46% Republican, zero seats.

  • New Hampshire: 48% Republican, zero seats.

  • Rhode Island: 42% Republican, zero seats.

  • Vermont: 32% Republican, zero seats.

  • Hawaii: 38% Republican, zero seats.

  • Delaware: 42% Republican, zero seats.

Even in states where Republicans do hold seats, the imbalance is stark:

  • California: 38% Republican voters, but just 9 of 52 seats (20.9%).

  • Illinois: 44% Republican voters, but only 3 of 17 seats (17.6%).

  • Maryland: 34% Republican voters, but just 1 of 8 seats (12.5%).

  • Oregon: 41% Republican voters, but only 1 of 6 seats (16.7%).

This disparity is no accident. Blue states have systematically drawn maps to wipe out Republican representation. Now that red states are returning the favor, Democrats are discovering they have no room left to retaliate… they’ve already maxed out their own partisan advantages.

Texas as the Flashpoint

The battle has been especially fierce in Texas. After Democrat lawmakers fled the state to block legislation, Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton moved aggressively. Arrest warrants were issued for runaway legislators, and GOP lawmakers openly discussed increasing Republican representation with each week Democrats refused to return.

Under the Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, partisan gerrymandering is a “political question” beyond federal court jurisdiction (meaning states can draw districts however they see fit). Red states are seizing that opportunity to counter decades of Democrat-drawn maps in blue territory.

The Bigger Picture

What’s happening now isn’t just about maps, or census methodology, or one executive order. It’s about a political realignment that could define American governance for a generation. By excluding non-citizens from the count and aggressively redrawing districts, Republicans could secure a structural advantage in both Congress and the Electoral College that Democrats would be hard-pressed to overcome.

Democrats have long argued these tactics undermine democracy. But as even some liberal commentators admit, they’ve been using the exact same tactics in their own states for years (and in many cases, more aggressively than Republicans ever did).

The irony is inescapable: the party that perfected the art of gerrymandering and census manipulation is now on the receiving end of its own playbook.

If the trends hold, the 2026 midterms could deliver a decisive shift in power… not just for the next Congress, but for decades to come.

Read full Article
Restoring Federalism: Repealing Selective Incorporation and Returning to the Founders’ Vision of State Sovereignty

 

Executive Summary

If constitutional originalists such as historian David Barton or jurists in the tradition of Justice Clarence Thomas could propose one constitutional amendment, it would be this:

"To repeal the doctrine of selective incorporation, thereby restoring the Bill of Rights to its original purpose: a restraint solely on the federal government, not the states."

The selective incorporation doctrine—derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause—has enabled federal courts to impose nationalized standards on state governments, in areas ranging from religion and speech to criminal procedure and gun rights. Though seemingly protective of individual liberties, this doctrine has also eroded state sovereignty, upended local moral governance, and consolidated federal judicial supremacy—a direction wholly foreign to the Founders’ original design.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Yes, We Have the Evidence: Obama Officials Accused in Treasonous Coup Against Trump

In a bombshell report, conservative commentator Dr. Steve Turley claims that former President Barack Obama is at the center of a scandal that dwarfs Watergate, potentially marking one of the most significant political controversies in American history.

placeholder
 

According to Turley, newly declassified intelligence documents (released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard) reveal a "treasonous conspiracy" orchestrated at the highest levels of government, implicating Obama himself.

Turley cites a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump, featuring an AI-generated video symbolically depicting Obama’s arrest and imprisonment. While the video is not literal, Turley argues it reflects a growing sentiment that “the walls are closing in” on the former president. He describes the unfolding events as a “national scandal” with a paper trail leading directly to Obama—one that could become what Turley calls the “crown jewel” of Trump’s historic legacy.

AI Generated

 

The Allegations: A Coup in Motion

Turley’s central claim is based on over 100 declassified documents, which he says have been referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. According to Turley:

  • Before the 2016 election, every major U.S. intelligence agency (including the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security) agreed there was no evidence of Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign.

  • Despite this, Turley alleges that in December 2016, shortly after Trump’s victory, Obama ordered a coordinated effort to fabricate intelligence contradicting those findings.

This alleged effort involved senior officials such as:

  • FBI Director James Comey

  • Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe

  • CIA Director John Brennan

  • Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

  • Secretary of State John Kerry

  • National Security Adviser Susan Rice

According to Turley, this operation was intended to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, amounting to a “systematic creation of false intelligence.” Citing Tulsi Gabbard, Turley calls this a “treasonous” act that undermined the democratic process and triggered a constitutional crisis.

Beyond Partisan Lines: A Threat to Democracy

Turley emphasizes that this is not a partisan issue:

“It’s irrelevant whether you’re Republican or Democrat… What Tulsi is exposing represents a fundamental attack on the democratic process.”

He warns that the alleged actions went far beyond political maneuvering. They represented a direct assault on the legitimacy of a duly elected president and on the will of the American people.

Whistleblowers & the Call for Justice

Turley also claims that whistleblowers from within Obama’s administration are now coming forward, ready to testify. These individuals, he says, are preparing affidavits describing how federal institutions were weaponized against the American people.

Gabbard has emphasized the need for accountability:

  • Prosecutions and indictments are necessary, she argues, to restore trust in democratic institutions.

  • Turley agrees, framing this not as a matter of revenge, but of justice, ensuring that no future administration can misuse intelligence agencies for political ends.

Media Complicity & the Fight for Truth

Turley warns that the legacy media—which he labels as “complicit” in the scandal—may attempt to bury or discredit the story. However, he insists:

“The documents don’t lie.”

He predicts that within months, a major media figure might break ranks and expose the media’s role in covering up the scandal, further amplifying its national impact.

Final Word: A Populist Crossroads

In a broader appeal, Turley urges Americans to stay engaged:

  • He calls on citizens to demand accountability and stand with a populist movement that cuts across traditional political lines.

  • He stresses: “The rule of law must apply equally to everyone.”

As the Justice Department—now led by Pam Bondi, reviews the evidence, Turley promises to continue monitoring developments and keep his audience informed.

placeholder


Source: Dr. Steve Turley

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals