“`html
Fact Check Analysis: “Biden team reportedly considering preemptive pardons for Fauci, Schiff, other Trump ‘targets'”
A subscriber of DBUNK has submitted a fact-check request for an article published by Fox News on December 5, 2024, written by Danielle Wallace. The article claims that President Biden’s White House is reportedly deliberating preemptive pardons for Dr. Anthony Fauci, Senator-elect Adam Schiff, and former Congresswoman Liz Cheney. The headline, along with certain sections of the article, raises suspicions for readers—leading to questions about whether President Biden is attempting to “cover up” potential wrongdoing by these individuals. Let’s critically evaluate these claims, identify any misinformation, and provide readers with proper context.
Misinformation and Missing Context Found
The article presents several allegations using vague or ambiguous language while framing them in a way that may insinuate wrongdoing by the individuals mentioned. This has created a misleading impression for readers. Here’s what we found:
1. Claim: Biden Considering Preemptive Pardons
The article relies heavily on unnamed sources and speculative language regarding discussions within the Biden administration. For example, it states, “White House counsel Ed Siskel is arranging discussions about the potential pardons… Politico reported, citing senior Democrats familiar with the talks.” However, the original Politico article provides no definitive or verifiable sources confirming that pardons are actively being pursued. Furthermore, the headline of the article frames the subject in a definitive manner, despite lacking substantial evidence that these pardons are being seriously considered.
Missing Context: Preemptive pardons, historically, do not indicate guilt or wrongdoing and are often used as a political or protective measure. The article fails to explain this nuance, leaving readers to assume that pardons imply criminal behavior. For example, the piece does not mention that former President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon was never deemed an admission of guilt.
2. Misleading Framing of Fauci’s Statements
The article points to a House subcommittee report that criticizes Dr. Fauci’s public statements regarding the COVID-19 lab-leak theory and social distancing measures. It highlights his past congressional testimony to imply potential misconduct. However, this portrayal is selective and misleading. For instance, while the subcommittee report emphasizes Fauci’s initial dismissal of the lab-leak theory, it does not definitively claim that his actions were illegal or intentionally deceptive. The article omits this important distinction.
Missing Context: The House subcommittee referenced is led by Republican lawmakers, many of whom are vocal critics of Dr. Fauci. This inherently partisan background is essential for readers evaluating the report’s findings. Without this information, the article risks amplifying partisan arguments as if they were non-partisan facts.
3. Misapplied Comparisons to Past Pardons
The article includes statements that compare potential Biden pardons to Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon and discusses calls from lawmakers like Sen. Ed Markey in favor of preemptive pardons. While these historical comparisons are valid, they are presented in a way that could sensationalize concerns without fully explaining the unique legal and political contexts of each instance.
Answering the Subscriber’s Inquiry
A DBUNK subscriber inquired: “Why would they need a pardon if they didn’t break the law? Can this mean that Biden is trying to cover up the laws they have broken?” Great question. Here’s the answer:
Preemptive pardons are not inherently an indication of guilt. These pardons are often issued to protect individuals from politically motivated prosecutions or legal harassment in deeply polarized environments. Past examples—such as Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon—show that such measures may be intended to prevent political upheaval rather than to shield criminal behavior.
The claim that Biden is “covering up” crimes is speculative and unsupported by substantive evidence. The language used in the article implies this without providing direct documentation or verification of wrongdoing by Schiff, Fauci, or Cheney. Furthermore, preemptive pardons do not equate to clear evidence of criminal activity; rather, they can be precautionary in nature.
Conclusion
The Fox News article contains speculative claims, misleading framing, and lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate its central allegations. It raises valid questions about the use of pardons in politically charged contexts but presents the information in a manner that amplifies partisan fears and suspicions rather than offering a balanced perspective.
Readers are encouraged to critically assess sensational headlines and consider the sources, motives, and context behind claims. If you’re tired of spending hours sifting through misleading news, read the original article here and join DBUNK to stay informed with accurate, non-partisan analysis every step of the way.
Don’t let misinformation win. Download the DBUNK app today to eliminate doubt and ensure clarity in your media diet.
“`
