The First Amendment Does Not Protect Media Matters From Breaking The Law
DOJ exposes 'black and white evidence' that Biden admin knew autopenned pardons were legally flawed
The Oversight Project obtained damning internal emails this week from the Justice Department revealing a high-level understanding in the Biden administration that the autopenned commutations issued on Jan. 17 in the former president's name were legally flawed.
In addition to showcasing former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer's legal concerns, the emails provided by U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin's office reveal that the Biden administration apparently misled the nation about the violent criminal nature of the individuals who received commutations.
'You should stop saying that because it is untrue or at least misleading.'
Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, told Blaze News, "This represents the first written black and white evidence of fundamental disagreement in the Biden camp as it relates to the pardon strategy writ large."
"Obviously, this is particularized to the warrants for the commutations of people they never should have let out of jail — but it's the senior-most career lawyer in the DOJ, like [Merrick] Garland's top guy, basically saying, 'WTF are you guys doing? This is illegal,'" said Howell.
Howell suggested further that the potentially unlawful nature of the commutations is cause to keep imprisoned those whose sentences were commuted and who are scheduled to be released.
For those felons who received clemency and are no longer behind bars, the Oversight Project president said, "They should rearrest them."
A Jan. 17, 2025, statement attributed to Biden characterizes the recipients of the commutations as felons "convicted of non-violent drug offenses."
The emails obtained by the Oversight Project reportedly show that Weinsheimer, a 34-year department veteran, took issue with this apparent lie, noting that "in the communications about the commutations, the White House has described those who received commutations as people of non-violent drug offenses. I think you should stop saying that because it is untrue or at least misleading."
RELATED: Biden tried defending autopen use to the New York Times. He made it a whole lot worse.
Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
"I do not think it is close to accurate to describe all the clemency recipients as those convicted of non-violent drug offenses," apparently added the former DOJ official.
'I have no idea if the President was aware of these backgrounds when making clemency decisions.'
The 2,490 federal inmates who received the commutations are a motley crew of thugs, including murderers and violent drug dealers.
Among them:
- Terrence Richardson and Ferrone Claiborne, whose drug-trafficking offenses led to the death of a police officer;
- Russell McIntosh, a thug who gunned down a woman who threatened to expose his drug enterprise along with her 2-year-old child;
- Adrian Peeler, sentenced for conspiracy to commit murder involving the slaying of an 8-year-old witness and his mother; and
- Plaze Anderson, a former high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples who was personally involved in two murders, an attempted murder and kidnapping, and obstruction of justice.
Weinsheimer added that based on limited review, the DOJ identified 19 inmates under consideration for clemency who were "highly problematic," as that list included "violent offenders, including those who committed acts of violence during the offense of conviction, or who otherwise have a history of violence such that it is misleading to suggest they are non-violent drug offenders," the email showed.
Sixteen of those 19 problematic felons received grants of clemency in Biden's name, and their commutations were characterized as "progress towards justice" by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"I have no idea if the President was aware of these backgrounds when making clemency decisions," Weinsheimer wrote. "The Department was largely excluded from the process, which we otherwise opposed."
The emails revealed that not only were the commutations opposed internally and not as advertised — they were likely unlawful.
Blaze News has reached out to Weinsheimer and the ACLU for comment.
RELATED: Don’t let the Biden autopen scandal become just another lame hearing
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Three clemency warrants were apparently issued on Jan. 17. The second of the three warrants awarded clemency to criminals for "offenses described to the Department of Justice."
Weinsheimer and others at the DOJ seemingly had trouble making heads or tails of the warrant and its legality, as no offenses were actually described.
The emails show a fight to get a list of the criminals' offenses — specifically those for which they were receiving commutations — amid mounting questions from courts, congressional staff, and the criminals' families.
'Because no offenses have been described to the Department from the President, the commutations do not take effect.'
In a Jan. 18 email to his DOJ colleagues at the Pardon Attorney's Office as well as to the White House Counsel's Office, Weinsheimer noted, "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 President’s intent, we will need a statement or direction from the President as to how to interpret the language."
— (@)
Weinsheimer suggested that the "clearest and least problematic way" of curing the apparent legal error was for Biden to explain his meaning and to provide a "list as to each inmate listing the offenses that are covered by the commutation."
The DOJ official identified three other ways to deal with the apparent legal error.
The DOJ could interpret the warrant to apply to "all federal offenses for which the inmate is under sentence" — an interpretation the Bureau of Prisons was reportedly likely to use. Weinsheimer warned, however, that such an interpretation would likely result in the commutations of sentences for violent felons, which Biden may not have wanted, and would render the qualifying language "superfluous."
RELATED: Jill Biden's 'shadowy' chief of staff clams up during autopen probe
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Alternatively, the DOJ could interpret "offenses described to the Department" on the basis of "the U.S. Sentencing Commission Spreadsheets" — the nature and contents of which are presently unclear. According to the emails, Weinsheimer again expressed concern, suggesting that "it is a guess as to what is meant by the warrant language, and [that interpretation] goes beyond the four corners of the warrant, something we do not normally do."
The final way Weinsheimer identified was not to act on the commutations: "Because no offenses have been described to the Department from the President, the commutations do not take effect."
'It's time for legal action based on autopen.'
Weinsheimer noted further that "describing offenses to the Department is a condition precedent to the commutations being effective, and without description, they do not take effect. I have no idea what interpretation the incoming [Trump] Administration will give to the warrant, but they may find this interpretation attractive, as it gives effect to the language but does not go beyond the four corners of the warrant."
The Oversight Project noted that while "pardoning via category is already an illegal delegation of a nondelegable power," that Weinsheimer email "illustrates that the government officials charged with executing the president's delegated orders on January 17, 2025, Warrant 2 had no idea what the president actually ordered."
Howell told Blaze News that the revelations in the emails provide the administration and lawmakers with an "angle to attack."
Howell said that President Donald Trump, who has already declared all of the autopen pardons null and void, can now say, "We're not honoring these commutations. You know who agrees with us? Biden's DOJ."
"Again, for the first time, we have written evidence of the disagreement," said Howell. "So there's no reason to sit around and wait. It's time for legal action based on autopen."
Editor's note: Mike Howell is a contributor to Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Former AG Bill Barr testifies he found no dirt on Trump during Epstein probe, Comer says
The Epstein saga continues as the House Oversight Committee kicks off its questioning of several high-profile figures. Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who investigated the death of Jeffrey Epstein during the first Trump administration, appeared for a hearing Monday morning to give his testimony.
Though the hearing was behind closed doors, members of the committee updated reporters about the progress of the hearing.
'I think it's unfortunate that the Democrats are trying to, seems to me, politicize this.'
"He said that he had never seen anything that would implicate President Trump in any of this and that he believed if there had been anything pertaining to President Trump with respect to the Epstein list, that he felt like the Biden administration would probably have leaked it out," Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) told reporters partway through Barr's testimony.
"I have more questions now than I did before going in," Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) told reporters before Comer's remarks. "Just generally, though, I think the Democratic side is doing most of the heavy lifting. I don't think we're learning much from the questioning from the House Republicans."
RELATED: Whistleblower drops bombshell: Did Bill Barr and Fani Willis team up to sabotage Trump's comeback?
Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
When asked about Subramanyam's comments, Comer reportedly said, "I think it's unfortunate that the Democrats are trying to, seems to me, politicize this."
Barr's hearing is the first in a series of high-profile House Oversight depositions in the coming months. Alberto Gonzales, Jeff Sessions, Robert Mueller, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, James Comey, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton are set to appear before the Oversight Committee through October.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Jack Smith tried to take Trump off the board. Now he's set for a reckoning.
Just three days after President Donald Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign, Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland unlawfully appointed prosecutor Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee two criminal investigations into the Republican candidate.
One of the Justice Department's investigations concerned Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents; the other pertained to the imagined efforts by Trump to subvert the 2020 election.
While it was immediately clear to Trump that Smith was "a political hit man who is totally compromised," Garland's special counsel soon gave critics cause to suspect the president's instincts were right once again.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Blaze Media co-founder and nationally syndicated radio host Glenn Beck last year that the Biden DOJ's "witch hunt prosecution" of Trump was "not designed to obtain a legally valid conviction. It's designed to take anyone running against Joe Biden — in other words, president Donald Trump — off the campaign trail."
Although Trump was ultimately slapped with scores of charges, neither case went anywhere. The classified documents case was torpedoed in July 2024 because of Smiths' unlawful appointment, and the Jan. 6 case was scuttled in November following Trump's re-election.
Trump is no longer in hot water; however, Smith appears poised to take a plunge.
RELATED: Why an Epstein special investigator is a disastrously stupid idea
Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel confirmed to Reuters on Saturday that it has launched an investigation into whether Smith violated the Hatch Act — a federal law that prohibits government employees both from using their "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election" or from engaging in partisan political activity while on official duty time.
The investigation by the independent federal prosecutorial agency follows a request by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton (R), who has accused Smith of interfering in the 2024 presidential election.
'President Trump's astounding victory doesn't excuse Smith of responsibility for his unlawful election interference.'
"Jack Smith's legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns. This isn't just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office," Cotton wrote.
In a July 30 letter to Jamieson Greer, acting special counsel at the OSC, Cotton highlighted a number of instances where Smith expedited trial proceedings and released provocative information allegedly "with no legitimate purpose."
Cotton noted, for example, that Smith tried to rush Trump's election subversion case, demanding a trial start date of Jan. 2, 2024 — just four months and three weeks after Smith filed the indictment against the president.
"Notably," Cotton wrote, "jury selection was to begin just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses."
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
In another example, Cotton said that Smith filed a brief on Trump's immunity from prosecution that was 165 pages long — exceeding the normal maximum page limit by four times — and "incorporated grand jury testimony typically kept secret at this point in other proceedings."
"This action appears to be a deliberate and underhanded effort to disclose unsubstantiated and extensive allegations timed to maximize electoral impact," Cotton wrote.
"These actions were not standard, necessary, or justified — unless Smith's real purpose was to influence the election," wrote the senator. "President Trump of course vanquished Joe Biden, Jack Smith, every Democrat who weaponized the law against him, but President Trump's astounding victory doesn't excuse Smith of responsibility for his unlawful election interference."
The OSC could reportedly refer its findings to the DOJ; however, the Justice Department is already reviewing "politicized" actions taken by Smith, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James through its Weaponization Working Group.
Blaze News has reached out to the White House for comment. Politico indicated that Smith did not immediately respond to its request for comment.
Smith's office altogether blew over $47 million in taxpayer dollars on the two failed probes. He noted in his investigative report on Trump, "While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters."
Smith resigned 10 days before the president's inauguration.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
If You’re Mad About Texas’ Redistricting, Blame Biden’s DOJ
EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Official Who Approved $2 Million Payout To Disgraced Russia Hoaxers Identified As Left-Wing Activist Brian Netter
Oversight Committee Moves To Subpoena The Clintons, Comey, Garland And Others In Epstein Probe
'Committee Democrats won the fight for transparency'
Biden Justice Department Sought ‘Federal Hook’ To Go After Parents As ‘Domestic Terrorists’: Documents
Jill Biden’s ‘Work Husband’ Pleads The Fifth In Biden White House Cover-Up Probe
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories