Excerpts From The Times’s Interview With Biden on Clemency Decisions

Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. spoke to The New York Times by phone on Thursday about clemency actions he granted toward the end of his term. Mr. Biden did not personally sign the official warrants recording those decisions; rather his White House staff used an autopen device to do so.

President Trump and his allies have since called into question Mr. Biden’s mental acuity and seized on the use of the autopen. Mr. Trump has denounced the pardons and commutations as illegitimate and claimed that Mr. Biden’s staff conspired to run the presidency in his name using the device. Both the Justice Department and congressional Republicans have opened investigations.

He also granted pardons to several people whose cases have received political attention, including pre-emptive pardons to people who had drawn the ire of Mr. Trump.

Among them were members and staff of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol attack along with Capitol Police officers who testified before the panel, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the retired Gen. Mark A. Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and members of Mr. Biden’s family.

Below are excerpts.

On who made the clemency decisions

I made every single one of those. And — including the categories, when we set this up to begin with. And so — but I understand why Trump would think that, because obviously, I guess, he doesn’t focus much. Anyway, so — yes, I made every decision.

On why an autopen was used to sign the warrants

Because there were a lot of them.

On the use of the autopen

The autopen is, you know, is legal. As you know, other presidents used it, including Trump. But the point is that, you know, we’re talking about a whole lot of people.

On Trump and other Republicans saying Biden was incapacitated and his aides abused the autopen

They’re liars. They know it. They know, for certain. I mean, this is — look, what they, they’ve had a pretty good thing going here. They’ve done so badly. They’ve lied so consistently about almost everything they’re doing. The best thing they can do is try to change the focus and focus on something else. And this is a — I think that’s what this is about.

It’s — you know — it’s consistent with Trump’s game plan all along. I mean, if I — I don’t expect you to answer any questions — but if I told you three years ago, we’d have a president doing this, I think you’d look at me in the eye and say, “What, are you, crazy?”

On granting pre-emptive pardons to family

In terms of my fam — he — go after me through my family. I know how vindictive he is. I mean, everybody knows how vindictive he is. So we knew that they’d do what they’re doing now. [laughs]

And my family didn’t do anything wrong. My sister, my brother-in-law, my — my brother, etc. And — and all it would do is, if they, if he went after them, would be, is run up legal bills. I just, I just know how he operates. And so I made — but I consciously made all those decisions, among others.

On orally communicating his decisions to aides

Well, first of all, there’s categories. So, you know, they aren’t reading names off for the commutations for those who had been home confinements for, during the pandemic. So the only things that really we read off names for were, for example, you know, was I, what was I going to do about, for example, Mark Milley?

Mark’s a good guy. We know how vindictive Trump is and I’ve no doubt they would have gone after Mark for no good reason. The general, you know. So they may read off his name — what’d I want?

I told them I wanted to make sure he had a pardon because I knew exactly what Trump would do — without any merit, I might add. And you know, you know, members of the Jan. 6 committee — it’s just, there were no — I was deeply involved. I laid out a strategy how I want to go about these, dealing with pardons and commutations. I was — and I pulled the team in to say this is how I want to get it done generically and then specifically. And so, you know, that’s just — this is how it worked.

On deciding to pardon the former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, then changing his mind the next day

Look, Siegelman was out of jail. He had served his time. And there was no — so he wasn’t in jeopardy. And what I concluded was, there’s — and these aren’t easy decisions, but there are a lot of people who are considered for pardons. And I was proud I ran the process I ran.

These decisions took time. In this case, I viewed the facts, reflected on it a bit more, and deliberated more on it with my team and decided not to grant the pardon. And I didn’t make this decision quickly. I made it thoroughly and after significant discussion.

On adding a last-minute pardon for a former South Carolina politician after Representative Jim Clyburn lobbied for it

The case that Jim — and I have great faith in Jim — the case he made, the plea he made at the very end, was that — he made a compelling case that he was a person who had dedicated his life to public service, Cromartie. Since his release from prison, he became really involved in the community, helping underprivileged kids, staying active with his church. And he’s someone who had been praised for his leadership and compassion for others.

So the very thing that he sort of got in trouble for, he was not only — served time, but he was making up for it. And I believed granting him a pardon was the right thing to do. There were decisions I made — this decision I made quickly and easily as Jim laid the case out.

What he was doing now, that was almost a continuation of his apology for what the hell happened when he made, when he committed the offense. So I agreed with Jim and I pardoned him. And he’s still a decent — this guy still is engaged, stayed engaged in the community.

On why he did not commute the sentences of three death-row inmates to life without parole when he did so for the other 37

Those three, because they became — they were involved in what were major, major issues relating to terrorism and crimes that were — had national implications. One — for example, I was deeply involved in the one having to do with the church and I was down there.

It just seemed to me that it was going to be — it was just a bridge too far. And so that’s why I didn’t pardon those three, because they had a national implication that stood for things beyond the crime they committed. It was a reflection of what they did to the entire nation and the community.

And so, that’s what I withheld them. I spoke to the pope about this, by the way. I was — I had a discussion about — he called me to congratulate me on keeping my word about not supporting the death penalty.

But I told him I couldn’t do the last three. And, that’s, that, that’s the reason because it’s sort of like, you know, the guy who, — you know, I’m making this up — assassinates Abraham Lincoln. You don’t, you, you know, you can’t pardon him because there’s such a, such a gigantic implication for things that go well beyond that individual murder. That was my decision, anyway. Some thought I should have, but I decided not to do those three.