Sen. Adam Schiff :"Pardoning violent insurrectionists is a terrible – but not terribly surprising – way for Donald Trump to begin his new administration."

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) recently made strong remarks regarding two significant events involving pardons in the political landscape. First, he criticized former President Donald Trump’s decision to issue pardons to nearly 1,500 individuals charged in connection to the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. Then, Schiff commented on President Joe Biden’s issuance of preemptive pardons for members and staff of the House January 6 select committee, including himself and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.). Both situations raised important legal, ethical, and political concerns, and Schiff’s comments reflected his deep concern over the precedent each action set.

In an interview on MSNBC’s Inside with Jen Psaki, Schiff sharply condemned Trump’s actions, calling them "obscene" and a "grotesque display" of his presidential power. He highlighted the potential inclusion of individuals who had violently assaulted law enforcement officers during the Capitol attack, raising questions about the justice system's ability to hold those responsible for the insurrection accountable. Schiff emphasized that it was troubling for Trump to use the pardon power to absolve people who had engaged in violent attacks on police and democracy itself. His criticism centered on the scale of the pardons—Trump pardoned around 1,500 individuals—arguing that it was a morally questionable exercise of power to undo the legal consequences of such serious offenses.

Schiff also pointed out that this move was not only troubling for its disregard of justice, but also symbolic of Trump's broader disregard for democratic norms. The former president had previously made statements, such as his infamous “stand back and stand by” remark to the Proud Boys, that seemed to signal his support for extremist groups. By pardoning individuals involved in the attack, Trump appeared to validate the violent actions of his supporters, giving further weight to the notion that the Capitol attack was part of a broader effort to subvert the democratic process.

However, Schiff's criticism did not stop at Trump’s actions. He also reflected on President Biden’s decision to issue preemptive pardons for members and staff of the January 6 committee, a move that included Schiff and Raskin. While Schiff recognized the practical necessity of the pardons in light of potential legal challenges that could arise from investigating Trump’s role in the insurrection, he expressed reservations about the broader implications. Schiff made it clear that, ideally, he would have preferred that President Biden did not issue these pardons. "I would have preferred that he didn’t, not to the committee, not to members of his family," Schiff stated.

Schiff's comments underscore the delicate balance between protecting individuals who are carrying out their duties in the face of potential retribution and the risk of setting a troubling precedent for future administrations. His concern was rooted in the belief that the political weaponization of pardons—whether in Trump’s sweeping pardons for the January 6 rioters or Biden’s protective measures for committee members—could further erode public trust in the integrity of the justice system and the separation of powers. While Schiff understood the risks that committee members faced, given the ongoing threats from Trump and his supporters, he cautioned that such actions could normalize the idea of using pardons as tools for political protection.

In sum, both Trump’s pardons and Biden’s preemptive clemency raise fundamental questions about accountability, justice, and political power in America. Schiff’s remarks reflect the complicated nature of navigating such high-stakes political decisions in an era of intense partisan division and rising threats to democracy. As Schiff put it, while he appreciated the need for legal safeguards, he remained deeply concerned about the precedent these actions set for future administrations and the potential erosion of the rule of law.