In the waning days of President Joe Biden's tenure in the Oval Office, a cloud of uncertainty has been cast over the commutations he issued.
The ambiguity surrounding these commutations has raised eyebrows and sparked a flurry of questions, particularly concerning the use of the autopen in the issuance of pardons.
According to RedState, the Oversight Project has obtained messages that shed light on the confusion within the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the scope of these commutations. These messages, reviewed by various media outlets including The New York Post, reveal a top DOJ official grappling to comprehend the extent of the offenses covered by the commutations.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Brad Weinsheimer, in his quest for clarity, requested a comprehensive list detailing the offenses each inmate had committed that were covered by the commutation. In an email dated January 18 to members of the White House Counsels Office and the DOJ Pardon Attorneys Office, Weinsheimer expressed his concerns about the ambiguous language used in the warrant.
He stated, I think the language offenses described to the Department of Justice in the warrant is highly problematic and in order to resolve its meaning appropriately, and consistent with the Presidents intent, we will need a statement or direction from the President as to how to interpret the language.
He further emphasized that a statement directly from Biden would help clarify the meaning of the warrant language.
The lack of clarity surrounding the scope of a commutation could pose significant challenges in its execution. However, this was not the only issue that Weinsheimer reportedly encountered.
In his communication about the commutations, he noted a discrepancy in the White House's portrayal of the recipients. He stated, One other important note - in communication about the commutations, the White House has described those who received commutations as people convicted of non-violent drug offenses. I think you should stop saying that because it is untrue or at least misleading.
Weinsheimer revealed that they had identified at least 19 "highly problematic" commutations, including "violent offenders," who had either committed acts of violence during their offense or had a history of violence. He argued that it was "misleading to suggest that they are nonviolent drug offenders." He also hinted at the likelihood of more problematic cases that they had yet to review.
Weinsheimer expressed his frustration at the lack of opportunity to vet and provide input on the potential commutation recipients. He stated, Unfortunately and despite repeated requests and warnings, we were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to vet and provide input on those you were considering.
He also pointed out that they were only provided with the actual warrants and information on those for whom the President was granting clemency minutes before the list was posted online.
Weinsheimer was not alone in his concerns. Then-DOJ Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer also voiced her frustrations, citing the increasing upset and concern among congressional staff, US Courts/Probation, and stakeholder organizations due to the unavailability of a list.
Elysa Wan of the DOJs Criminal Division echoed Weinsheimer's concerns about the lack of clarity, seeking clarification from Oyer and White House associate counsel DeAnna Evans about the interpretation of 'offenses described to the Department of Justice.'
These revelations paint a picture of a DOJ scrambling to make sense of the commutations and fulfill their duties amidst the confusion. If the direction wasn't clear, their ability to effectively carry out their tasks was significantly hampered.
Furthermore, if Biden misrepresented the nature of the offenses committed by the commutation recipients, it raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability.
These issues are now in the hands of DOJ official Ed Martin, who has assumed the role of Pardon Attorney and is currently investigating these matters. The findings of his investigation will undoubtedly shed more light on the extent of the confusion and the potential misrepresentation of the commutation recipients.
Login