Biden team report­ed­ly con­sid­er­ing pre­emp­tive par­dons for Fau­ci, Schiff, oth­er Trump ‘tar­gets’

Pres­i­dent Biden’s White House is report­ed­ly con­sid­er­ing pre­emp­tive par­dons for Dr. Antho­ny Fau­ci, Sen.-elect Adam Schiff, D‑Calif., and for­mer Rep. Liz Cheney, R‑Wyo. 

White House coun­sel Ed Siskel is arrang­ing dis­cus­sions about the poten­tial par­dons with sev­er­al oth­er senior Biden aides, includ­ing chief of staff Jeff Zients, Politi­co report­ed, cit­ing senior Democ­rats famil­iar with the talks. 

The pres­i­dent, who grant­ed a sweep­ing par­don to his son, Hunter, for the past 11 years of crimes or poten­tial crimes ear­li­er this week, report­ed­ly has not been roped in on the delib­er­a­tions, accord­ing to Politi­co. 

The con­ver­sa­tions includ­ed whether Fau­ci, Schiff or Cheney would even accept a pre­emp­tive par­don, which could sug­gest wrong­do­ing and exac­er­bate crit­i­cisms brought by Pres­i­dent-elect Trump’s team. 

“I would urge the pres­i­dent not to do that,” Schiff told Politi­co. “I think it would seem defen­sive and unnec­es­sary.”

WHO ELSE MIGHT BIDEN PARDON AFTER HE SPARED HUNTER FROM SENTENCING?

Fox News Dig­i­tal reached out to the White House for com­ment but did not imme­di­ate­ly hear back. 

Trump’s appoint­ment of Kash Patel to be the next FBI direc­tor report­ed­ly drove the talks of pre­emp­tive par­dons amid con­cern of pos­si­ble forth­com­ing inquiries or indict­ments once the new admin­is­tra­tion takes over in Jan­u­ary. 

Rep. Bren­dan Boyle, D‑Pa., who host­ed Biden in bat­tle­ground Penn­syl­va­nia before the elec­tion, called on the pres­i­dent to issue blan­ket par­dons when Patel’s nom­i­na­tion was announced – though he did not spec­i­fy the intend­ed recip­i­ents. 

“By choos­ing Kash Patel as his FBI Direc­tor, Trump has made it clear that he is more focused on set­tling per­son­al scores than on pro­tect­ing the Amer­i­can peo­ple or uphold­ing the rule of law. Patel has open­ly pub­lished an ‘ene­mies list’ in his book, nam­ing indi­vid­u­als he and Trump plan to inves­ti­gate and pros­e­cute – tar­get­ing those who stood up to Trump’s lies, abus­es of pow­er, and base­less attempts to over­turn the 2020 elec­tion. This is no hypo­thet­i­cal threat,” Boyle said in a state­ment. “The peo­ple they’re tar­get­ing include law enforce­ment offi­cers, mil­i­tary per­son­nel, and oth­ers who have spent their lives pro­tect­ing this coun­try. These patri­ots shouldn’t have to live in fear of polit­i­cal ret­ri­bu­tion for doing what’s right. That’s why I’m urg­ing Pres­i­dent Biden to issue a blan­ket par­don for any­one unjust­ly tar­get­ed by this vin­dic­tive scheme.”

NY TIMES WARNS HUNTER BIDEN PARDON COULD GIVE TRUMP AMMO FOR JAN. 6 PARDONS, WILL ‘TARNISH’ BIDEN’S RECORD

Sen. Ed Markey, D‑Mass., also spoke in favor of pre­emp­tive par­dons last week, not­ing how for­mer Pres­i­dent Ger­ald Ford grant­ed one to Richard Nixon

“If it’s clear by Jan­u­ary 19 that [revenge] is his inten­tion, then I would rec­om­mend to Pres­i­dent Biden that he pro­vide those pre­emp­tive par­dons to peo­ple, because that’s real­ly what our coun­try is going to need next year,” Markey told WGBH.

Schiff and Cheney both led the Jan. 6 select com­mit­tee that inves­ti­gat­ed the U.S. Capi­tol riot. 

Fau­ci, the for­mer direc­tor of the Nation­al Insti­tute of Aller­gy and Infec­tious Dis­eases (NIAID), is under renewed scruti­ny this week in light of the over 500-page final report dropped by the House sub­com­mit­tee that has been inves­ti­gat­ing gov­ern­ment response to the COVID-19 pan­dem­ic. The report – which found that COVID-19 most like­ly emerged from a lab­o­ra­to­ry in Wuhan, Chi­na – sup­port­ed how Fau­ci “played a crit­i­cal role in dis­parag­ing the lab-leak the­o­ry” among top sci­en­tif­ic cir­cles ear­ly in 2020 and lat­er to the pub­lic. His con­gres­sion­al tes­ti­mo­ny to Sen. Rand Paul, R‑Ky., the report states, mis­led the pub­lic regard­ing Nation­al Insti­tute of Health (NIH) fund­ing of gain-of-func­tion research at coro­n­avirus labs. 

It goes on to cite how Fau­ci tes­ti­fied that the six-foot social dis­tanc­ing rule imposed on Amer­i­cans “sort of just appeared” and did not sup­port qual­i­ty sci­en­tif­ic stan­dards, when he was grilled on what stud­ies he and the U.S. Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion (CDC) had reviewed before announc­ing the pol­i­cy. He also gave sim­i­lar­ly vague tes­ti­mo­ny when asked what sci­ence sup­port­ed K‑12 pub­lic school mask man­dates.