bet builder bet365 New Jersey interim Sen. George Helmy stepping down for Andy Kim to be sworn in earlySPS Commerce to Present at the Nasdaq 51st Investor Conference

Mayor Adams' lawyer joins board of Turkish ride-hailing appBoth second-year quarterbacks are playing well since returning to the starting lineup. Young has steadily improved after coming back in Week 8. He’s displayed the skills that earned him a Heisman Trophy at Alabama and convinced the Carolina Panthers to draft him ahead of C.J. Stroud with the No. 1 overall pick in 2023. Young had his best game on Sunday, nearly leading Carolina to an overtime win over Tampa Bay if it weren’t for Chuba Hubbard’s fumble in field-goal range. He threw for 298 yards and a go-ahead touchdown pass in the final minute of a 26-23 loss . Young almost led the Panthers to a win over the two-time defending Super Bowl champion Chiefs a week earlier, only to see Patrick Mahomes drive Kansas City into position for a winning field goal as time expired. Rookie coach Dave Canales benched Young for veteran Andy Dalton after just two games in which he had a 44.1 passer rating. The 23-year-old has completed 60.4% of his passes for 1,062 yards, six TDs and three interceptions — none in the past three games — while going 2-3 in the five starts since Young got another opportunity to lead the Panthers (3-9). Richardson has led Indianapolis to a pair of comeback wins late in the fourth quarter in three starts after he regained his starting job. The Colts (6-7) selected Richardson No. 4 last year and he started just 10 games before coach Shane Steichen benched him for Joe Flacco in Week 9. Richardson completed only 44.4% of his passes with four TDs and seven picks in his first six starts. He’s improved to 52.4% with three TDs and two picks since coming back. The 22-year-old tossed a 3-yard TD pass to Alec Pierce on fourth-and-goal with 12 seconds remaining and then ran in for a 2-point conversion to lift the Colts to a 25-24 win over New England on Sunday. Young and Richardson both have a long way to go to prove they can be franchise quarterbacks. But there’s far more optimism now that they’re not busts. Young is on his third head coach and second offensive coordinator in two seasons. Canales is known for getting the best out of quarterbacks, helping Geno Smith and Baker Mayfield revive their careers. He made a bold decision to bench Young after just two games but that allowed him to watch, grow and learn without the pressure of having to perform. Now it appears Young might have a future in Carolina when that seemed unlikely in September. Richardson just needs more experience. He threw only 393 passes in college and started four games as a rookie before he was injured. Steichen’s decision to bench him for Flacco didn’t work out. Flacco, who was the AP NFL Comeback Player of the Year last year after leading Cleveland to the playoffs by going 4-1 in five starts, struggled in two games. Still, that gave Richardson a chance to reset after tapping out for a play in the game before he was benched. Quarterbacks need time to develop. They can’t be judged fairly after one or two seasons, especially when they were high draft picks who joined bad teams that lacked talent. Clock management blunders Matt Eberflus lost his job as Chicago’s head coach a day after he watched the offense run out of time with a timeout in hand, missing an opportunity to push Detroit to overtime on Thanksgiving. But Antonio Pierce made an even worse decision on Black Friday that cost the Raiders a chance to beat the Chiefs. Aidan O’Donnell drove Las Vegas to the Chiefs 32 with 15 seconds left. Instead of trying for a game-winning field goal down 19-17, Pierce wanted O’Donnell to take the snap, allow more time to tick and throw the ball away. But O’Donnell wasn’t ready for the snap, the Chiefs recovered the fumble and escaped with the win. Managing the clock shouldn’t be this difficult for NFL head coaches. Tucker’s troubles Ravens kicker Justin Tucker is having the worst season of his 13-year career. If he wasn’t one of the best kickers in NFL history, Baltimore would’ve made a switch already. But coach John Harbaugh has too much respect for Tucker, who began the season as the most accurate kicker in league history. Tucker has missed a career-high eight field-goal attempts, including two in a 24-19 loss to Philadelphia. Harbaugh, a former special teams coach, isn’t planning to replace Tucker. But the Ravens (8-5) have Super Bowl aspirations and Tucker needs to straighten things out. One solution would be to place him on injured reserve to work on his technique. In this case, Tucker has earned the right not to be released. Plus, he’s signed through 2027.

Top gas plays have weathered the challenges and embraced opportunities in 2024 Gas will continue to play a major role in the global energy mix Australia still needs new sources of gas to avert forecast supply shortages One of the key themes in any discussion about energy has been about the continued role gas plays even as the world continues its march towards net zero emissions. In Australia, this is marked by the growing realisation that years of under investment in exploration means there are no ready replacements for ageing gas fields. This has led the Australian Energy Market Operator to warn in its 2024 Gas Statement of Opportunities that eastern Australia could experience shortfalls on extreme peak demand days from 2025, small seasonal supply gaps from 2026, and the controlled reduction of electricity supplied to homes and business during periods of peak demand from 2028. Energy consultancy EnergyQuest is far more pessimistic, saying that its calculations have indicated that there was only enough gas to meet 70% of NSW and ACT needs in the winters of 2026, 2027 and 2028 while Victoria would likely need to source 32% of its gas from LNG from the winter of 2028. Things aren’t much better globally, with the World Bank projecting the tightness of gas supplies in 2024 will persist in 2025 and 2026 with demand growth outstripping corresponding growth in supply. Natural gas storage in the European Union is already under pressure from high withdrawal rates and supply tightness is likely to get worse if forecasts that the region will experience its coldest winter since 2020 prove accurate. Gas company struggles are real While this might seem like the perfect environment for ASX gas plays to benefit from, the reality is that the demonisation of all fossil fuels has made investment almost taboo. One recent example is Commonwealth Bank, which announced in August 2024 that it would no longer offer money to fossil fuel companies that are not aligned with the Paris Agreement. Government action has also served to disincentivise investment with the $12 per gigajoule gas cap introduced in December 2022 acting to slow investment and introduce uncertainty about further market intervention . Environmental policies also appear to have disproportionately targeted gas , making it difficult to secure approvals for larger projects. It is not all negative though. The Federal government has recognised that gas is important and introduced a Future Gas Strategy that acknowledges this. Increasing pressure when power outages occur and the opposition, which backs faster approvals and development schedules, could also force the Albanese government to improve these areas if it stays in power following the 2025 election. With this in mind, here are some of the top performing gas plays in 2024 that have the potential to make further gains in 2025. CODE COMPANY PRICE MONTH % YEAR % MARKET CAP ROG Red Sky Energy. 0.01 37.5 120.0 $ 59,644,499 AXP AXP Energy Ltd 0.002 33.3 100.0 $ 5,824,681 CUE CUE Energy Resource 0.09 -6 86.5 $ 65,675,634 HYT Hyterra Ltd 0.04 -22.2 78.6 $ 61,786,438 TDO 3D Energi Ltd 0.1 6.74 63.8 $ 31,489,988 AEL Amplitude Energy 0.19 11.8 46.2 $ 501,607,264 ORG Origin Energy 10.4 0.14 22.8 $ 17,968,000,000 HZN Horizon Oil Limited 0.19 4.17 21.0 $ 300,680,864 LIO Lion Energy Limited 0.02 -21.7 9.1 $ 7,686,851 CND Condor Energy Ltd 0.02 -32.1 5.6 $ 11,726,674 Red Sky Energy (ASX:ROG) Red Sky holds a 20% interest in the Santos-operated Innamincka Dome project in South Australia and started receiving revenue in August 2023 from the sale of natural gas (76%) and liquids after the Yarrow field was tied into the grid. The company received $2.86m in cash receipts from then till the end of September 2024. About 76% of this comes from natural gas sales while the remainder is derived from ethane, LPG and condensate. The company recently completed the re-entry of the Yarrow-1 well and noted in mid-November that it is mobilising a workover rig to fracture stimulate it. The well is expected to boost output and revenue once it becomes fully operational in Q2 2025. AXP Energy (ASX:AXP) AXP is focused on establishing its Pathfinder gas field in Colorado as a reliable, off-grid gas-fired power generation operation. The company recently connected two modular data centres used for Bitcoin mining to the gas-to-power infrastructure at its Pathfinder #2 well site. Once this is completed, it will commence the setup of two more sites at the JW Powell and Kelce Court well sites. Cue Energy Resources (ASX:CUE) Cue Energy holds a diverse portfolio of oil and gas assets in Australia, Indonesia and New Zealand that generated $49.7m in revenue during FY2024 and delivered net profit after tax of $14.2m. In early December 2024, operator Central Petroleum started infill drilling at the Mereenie field in the Northern Territory to increase its near-term gas production back towards field capacity above 6 terajoules per day. Up to an additional 6TJ/d of gas from the two wells can be sold by the JV on a firm basis under the recently executed NT government gas sales agreement. Cue has a 7.5% interest in Mereenie. It also has a 15% stake in the Sampang PSC offshore Java, Indonesia, where the JV is moving towards a final investment decision on the Paus Biru project that could produce 20-25 million cubic feet of gas per day. Pic: CUE 3D Energi (ASX:TDO) 3D Energi holds a number of exploration licences across Australia, however its focus is on the Otway permits that were farmed out to supermajor ConocoPhillips. Conoco is carrying TDO for the drilling of two wells in 2025 under Phase 1 to a total of $65m. While the exact locations of the wells will be determined after 3D seismic is acquired and interpreted, the T/49P and VIC/P79 permits have the potential to host multiple trillion cubic feet of gas. Successful drilling could deliver much needed gas into the east coast market. Amplitude Energy (ASX:AEL) Formerly known as Cooper Energy, Amplitude is a significant producer of gas in Australia’s southeastern states. During FY2024, the company produced 62.1 terajoules of gas equivalent per day which returned underlying EBITDAX of $127.5m. Looking ahead, it expects production to increase to between 65 and 72TJe/d in FY2025 due to continued improvements at its Orbost plant in Victoria that will be accompanied by growing exposure to high spot and current market prices. The company has plans to start drilling in H2 2025 to test gross unrisked resources of >350 billion cubic feet in established basins. This is aimed at delivering first gas in 2028. HyTerra Limited (ASX:HYT) Natural hydrogen focused HyTerra recently expanded its Nemaha project landholding in Kansas by >15% to more than 60,000 acres, giving it plenty of room to expand should its upcoming drill program be successful. To top it off, Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue (ASX:FMG) made a $21.9m investment to earn a 39.66% stake in the company, a clear sign that big players are interested in the potential to find naturally occurring hydrogen with which to decarbonise existing uses of the gas. The investment also allowed the HYT to expand its original two well exploration program into a six well campaign to test a number of geological plays across its acreage. Historical exploration wells have already confirmed the presence of natural hydrogen and helium, with some returning up to 92% hydrogen and 3% helium. The Nemaha project. Pic: HyTerra Origin Energy (ASX:ORG) The only major energy company on our list of top performers in 2024, Origin has benefitted from continued strength of its LNG export business and domestic gas sales. During the September 2024 quarter, Australia Pacific LNG returned a 1% increase in revenue to $2.6bn due to higher sales volumes while domestic gas volumes were steady compared to the September 2023 quarter as higher retail sales and gas to generation were offset by a decrease in business volumes. For FY2025, it expects its LNG business to perform similarly to FY2024, when it produced 694 petajoules of gas while domestic gas profit is expected to moderate due to lower market prices. Horizon Oil (ASX:HZN) Like CUE, Horizon holds a 25% interest in the Mereenie gas field where Central is drilling two infill wells to increase near-term gas production. Mereenie currently accounts for 30-40% of the Northern Territory’s domestic gas supply, a number that will rise under the new gas sales agreement with its government. It also holds the producing Maari and Block 22/12 oil fields in New Zealand and China respectively. Lion Energy (ASX:LIO) While Lion has long enjoyed production from its small 2.5% (soon to be 2.25%) interest in Seram (Non-Bula) production sharing contract offshore Seram Island, Indonesia, and progressed oil exploration at its East Seram PSC, it is now progressing its green hydrogen ambitions. In Q3 2024, it signed a joint development agreement with Mitsubishi Corporation subsidiary DGA Energy Solutions Australia and Samsung C&T Corporation for the joint development of the Port of Brisbane green hydrogen project. DGA and Samsung will pay a total of $3.7m for historical and ongoing pre-construction costs in return for each taking up a 25% stake in the project. They will also procure $6.3m in debt financing, which will satisfy the capital requirement to complete the project. The Port of Brisbane project is designed to produce an initial 420kg/day of green hydrogen for public bus fleets and also to supply fuel cells providing onsite off-grid power to the Queensland construction and mining sectors. It is close to most of Brisbane’s 70+ bus depots as well as significant heavy vehicle traffic to and from the Port. Condor Energy (ASX:CND) Stepping a little further afield, Condor holds the Piedra Redonda gas field that covers almost all of the Tumbes Basin offshore Peru. The underexplored 4858km2 block is surrounded by multiple historical and currently producing oil and gas fields while Piedra Redonda itself has best estimate contingent resources of 404 billion cubic feet of gas. Its prospectivity has been enhanced by interpretation of newly reprocessed 3D seismic data which suggests the field is stratigraphic trap. This could improve reservoir connectivity and potential for future development. Adding further interest, a new petrophysical evaluation of the C-18X discovery well has indicated that a significant 500m gas column could be present from the crest of the structure down to the observed base. An updated resource estimate is currently being progressed. At Stockhead we tell it like it is. While HyTerra is a Stockhead advertiser, it did not sponsor this article. Originally published as 2024’s top gas performers have their eyes on the future Stockhead Don't miss out on the headlines from Stockhead. Followed categories will be added to My News. More related stories Stockhead Bell Potter’s 2025 mining stocks to watch Gold benefits from rate cuts, while copper shows long-term promise, with Bell Potter backing both for 2025. Read more Stockhead More small cap gems set to shine in 2025 After a stellar 2024 for recovering small to mid caps sector, our experts scour the sector for more overlooked nuggets. Read moreNeuer gets sent off for 1st time and Bayern Munich exits German Cup early again

Royal Navy's £3.2billion aircraft carrier stocks up on ammunition and 'increases readiness' as Ukraine military expert says 'World War Three has begun' By TOM COTTERILL Published: 12:02 EST, 22 November 2024 | Updated: 12:13 EST, 22 November 2024 e-mail 77 View comments Britain's new £3.2billion aircraft carrier has stocked up on ammunition and increased its 'readiness' after a Ukrainian military chief claimed 'World War Three had begun'. HMS Prince of Wales sailed into Glenmallen on Loch Long, in Argyll and Bute in Scotland, as tensions between the West and Russia threaten to boil over. Posting on X, the 65,000-tonne ship's official account wrote: 'We have arrived into Glen Mallan to uplift our ammunition and increase our readiness.' Defence sources were quick to stress the £3.2billion warship's arrival at the Scottish military hub was part of a pre-planned exercise ahead of its global deployment next year and 'not in response to Russian aggression'. However, it comes amid a chilling claim by a Ukrainian military chief that the world was already in the middle of an all-out conflict, as the war between Russia and Ukraine escalated to new, terrifying heights this week. Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin threatened to blitz UK and US military facilities, after British and American-made missiles were used by Kyiv to strike targets deep in Russian territory. In a televised address last night, the despot said his war in Ukraine was escalating towards a global conflict following the decision to allow British Storm Shadow missiles and American ATACMS rockets to be used to strike inside Russia. He then warned the West that Moscow could devastatingly strike back - amid claims the Kremlin was already planning a savage strike on Kyiv's Parliament building. HMS Prince of Wales sailed into Glenmallen on Loch Long, in Argyll and Bute in Scotland Defence sources were quick to stress the £3.2billion warship's arrival at the Scottish military hub was part of a pre-planned exercise ahead of its global deployment next year and 'not in response to Russian aggression'. HMS Prince of Wales tweeted about the ship's arrival in Scotland in a post on X Meanwhile, General Valery Zaluzhny, who is now Ukraine's envoy to the United Kingdom, told the UP100 award ceremony in Kyiv: 'I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun.' The military chief said that as of this year, 'Ukraine is no longer facing Russia. Soldiers from North Korea are standing in front of Ukraine.' Putin has already leaned on his autocratic allies, North Korea, Iran and China, to back his invasion of eastern bloc neighbour, which this week marked its 1,000th day since the war erupted. Around North Korean 10,000 soldiers have been sent by Pyongyang to fight alongside Russian troops in the Kursk region, as Moscow aims to replenish its forces and reclaim the territory taken from it three months ago. Zaluzhny went on to highlight the support Putin's armies had received from Tehran, which has sent thousands of Shahed attack drones to Moscow and also assisted it with the technology to build the drones itself, according to reports. More than 8,000 Iranian-developed drones have been launched since the war began two-and-a-half years ago, Kyiv said in September, with many targeting civilian homes as well as military targets. 'Let's be honest. Already in Ukraine, the Iranian "Shahedis" are killing civilians absolutely openly, without any shame,' Zaluzhny said, adding that Chinese and North Korean weapons were also being used against his country. It comes after Moscow's ambassador to the UK declared that Britain is now 'directly involved' in the war after Kyiv's Storm Shadow attack on Russian territory this week. A still image taken from an undated video released by the Russian Defence Ministry Press-Service on November 22 2024 shows a Russian T90M tank firing towards Ukrainian positions Valery Zaluzhny, who is now Ukraine's envoy to the United Kingdom, told a ceremony in Kyiv : 'I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun.' Picture reportedly shows North Korean troops in Russia ahead of deployment to the frontline A Ukrainian officer examines a downed Shahed drone with thermobaric charge launched by Russia in a research laboratory in an undisclosed location in Ukraine Read More 'WW3 has begun': Ukraine ex-military chief says as North Korea, Iran and China stand with Putin Asked if the UK is 'at war', Prime Minister Keir Starmer told BBC local radio: 'We're not at war, but Ukraine certainly is.' The PM also slammed Putin's 'irresponsible rhetoric'. 'Russia is the aggressor,' he said. 'This war could end today if Putin stopped being the aggressor.' Meanwhile, a top British defence chief declared the nation's military would be ready to fight Vladimir Putin's forces 'tonight' if Russia were to invade another European nation in addition to Ukraine. Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan, the deputy chief of the British defence staff, told the House of Commons defence committee yesterday afternoon: 'If the British Army was asked to fight tonight , it would fight tonight. 'I don't think anybody in this room should be under any illusion that if the Russians invaded Eastern Europe tonight, then we would meet them in that fight.' However, the veteran Royal Marine commando's declaration belies the state of the UK's military capabilities. In May, he acknowledged that Britain's soldiers would run out of ammunition and equipment in a war against Putin's Russia in less than two months. A muzzle flash lights up pine trees as the British Army's new Archer Mobile Howitzer gun fires, as British Army soldiers take part in training near Rovaniemi in the Arctic Circle, Finland Lt. Gen Sir Rob Magowan, the deputy chief of the British defence staff, told the House of Commons defence committee yesterday afternoon: 'If the British Army was asked to fight tonight, it would fight tonight' Meanwhile, HMS Prince of Wales and her sister ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, faced uncertainty this week over claims one of the mighty vessels could be 'mothballed'. The vessels are the biggest ever built for the Navy and cost more than £6billion, with the first commissioned in 2017. Together, they are meant to have a 50-year lifespan. But the Ministry of Defence and Chancellor Rachel Reeves 's department are understood to have had a discussion about what military kit could be cut as part of the upcoming strategic defence review - with the carriers' future reportedly raised. On Thursday, Defence Secretary John Healey was forced to address the rumours during a hearing of parliament's defence committee. Quizzed on whether one of the aircraft carriers would be mothballed as part of a major review of the military, Mr Healey said: 'They are under scrutiny but not in jeopardy. 'The decisions that will be have to take are those that we will take but in light of the reviewers' analysis when they come to report.' His comments came after his shock announcement on Wednesday that five warships - including two landing platforms and one frigate - were to be axed as part of a sweeping defence overhaul to save the MoD £500million. In a shocking move which sent alarming signals to the Kremlin, 31 frontline helicopters and a pair of Commando assault ships were axed. Read More BREAKING NEWS Fury as Labour unveils huge defence cuts as Putin threatens WW3: Helicopters, ships and drones axed While despite the domination of drones on the Ukrainian battlefield, the UK is to lose a staggering 46 Watchkeeper Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). A Royal Navy frigate HMS Northumberland and a pair of 'fast fleet tankers', which provide fuel for aircraft carriers, are also being chopped as part of the jaw-dropping plans. The decision by Defence Secretary was met by shock and fury, with sources saying the cuts delivered entirely the wrong message to Britain's enemies and allies such as the United States. The timing was also challenged as it coincides with the US ramping up its support for Ukraine – and as other NATO members are boosting their military capabilities. One senior naval figure remarked: 'Try telling Donald Trump these helicopters and ships were getting old and were costing more to repair, he'll only hear that Britain is making cuts'. Announcing the cuts in Parliament, Mr Healey told MPs: 'Today, with the full backing of our service chiefs I can confirm that six outdated capabilities will be taken out of service. Among the cuts announced include 14 of the oldest Chinook helicopters, which have been the backbone of military operations for decades (pictured is a Chinook in Afghanistan in 2006) Landing ship HMS Bulwark, which was meant to be retired in 2034, will now be scrapped at the end of the year Ageing frigate HMS Northumberland is due to be retired. It had been in refit when engineers found significant and costly structural damage to the vessel 'These decisions are set to save the Ministry of Defence £150 million in pounds over two years and up to £500 million over five years. Savings that will be retained, in full, in defence. 'HMS Northumberland's structural damage made her uneconomical to repair. The 46 Watchkeeper Mk 1s, a 14-year-old Army drone which technology had overtaken. 'HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, landing ships both effectively retired by previous ministers but superficially kept on the books at a cost of £9 million a-year. 'Fourteen Chinooks, some over 35-years-old, accelerated out of service, two 'Wave Class' tankers nobody had seen for years and 17 Puma helicopters, some with over 50 years' flying, will not be extended. 'Sadly, these will not be the last difficult decisions I am required to take.' Russia Moscow Ukraine Share or comment on this article: Royal Navy's £3.2billion aircraft carrier stocks up on ammunition and 'increases readiness' as Ukraine military expert says 'World War Three has begun' e-mail Add commentCanucks announce injured Filip Hronek out for 8 weeksPresident Joe Biden 's decision to grant his son Hunter Biden a sweeping pardon —despite having said previously that he would not do so—reignited the debate about a constitutional power that is vulnerable to abuse. Biden is not the first president to grant a controversial pardon and he will probably not be the last. It is a constitutional power woven in to the presidency by the Framers and would be hard—very hard—to change. But has the time finally come to strip the presidency of the power to pardon? Or could it be retained and reformed? Newsweek put the questions to a range of experts. This is what they said. Alberto Gonzales, Former U.S. Attorney General and White House Counsel The pardon power should remain with the president. A pardon is an act of clemency, an act of grace by the sovereign to be exercised in the good judgment of the sovereign for worthy cases. There is serious debate about the ability of a president to issue a self pardon. Clarification of this issue may require a constitutional amendment. But legislation passed by the Congress could inform a court examining this issue. The problem I have with the Biden pardon of his son is that he told the American people he would not pardon his son. This pardon makes that statement sound like a pure political statement. Second, his statement implies the prosecution was politically motivated. That hurts the DOJ and gives credence to Trump assertions that prosecutions of the January 6 rioters were political. Biden should have just said I am pardoning my son because it is the right thing to do. No more need to be said. George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Fellow, University of Oxford; University Distinguished Professor and Jordan Chair Emeritus, Texas A&M University Changing the pardon power requires a constitutional amendment. Amendments are difficult to pass and ratify. Moreover, every country needs a process to correct errors in the justice system. Of course, providing for the pardon power allows abuse. Donald Trump is especially notable for granting clemency to corrupt officials, friends and acquaintances, and others who were undeserving. The pardon power would be less likely to be abused if presidents pledged to vet all their pardons through the well-established Department of Justice and White House evaluation process and grant clemency only to those who received a positive recommendation. (There is no way to force presidents to do so.) Allan Lichtman, Distinguished Professor of History, American University The pardon power is enshrined in the Constitution as one of the enumerated presidential powers. However, before Biden, it was abused by many presidents. President Andrew Johnson pardoned former Confederate leaders and restored to political power many of the old Confederate elites who proceeded to keep their former slaves poor, controlled, and powerless. Richard Nixon pardoned the corrupt teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa and gained the teamster endorsement for his reelection. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, who had sought to subvert American democracy. Bill Clinton Pardoned the notorious fugitive Marc Rich. Donald Trump pardoned many of his convicted cronies and four employees of the private Blackwater security firm, convicted of murder for the killing of fourteen unarmed innocent men, women, and children in Iraq. I will limit my further comments to the topic where I can be most helpful: The pardon power itself. It could be repealed only through a Constitutional amendment, which is not feasible. However, given the rampant abuse of the pardon power, there are remedies short of an amendment. Congress could set clear guidelines for pardons and require presidents to document any pardons linked to themselves or their family members. It should also criminalize the granting of a pardon in exchange for anything of value. That remedy would not apply to a president immunized by the recent Supreme Court decision, but it would apply to anyone else involved. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow Emeritus, American Enterprise Institute Every discretionary power the Constitution or the law bestows on the president is subject to abuse, and in the Biden case it was. But when a president, at the end of his term in office, in the interest of fairness, corrects mistakes made by the penal system during his or a previous president's term, that is often a grace note of his time in office. It should be kept as the Framers intended. Brandon Rottinghaus, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Houston Reforming rather than removing the pardon power preserves the president's ability to grant mercy for overly punitive or harsh outcomes of the criminal justice system. We should not discount the role of pardons in providing for some systemic healing of our nation's most troublesome political moments. Andrew Johnson pardoned the doctor who treated John Wilkes Booth's broken leg after he assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon to heal the nation after Watergate. Jimmy Carter issued a blanket amnesty to Vietnam war draft evaders, following the end of the combative international struggle. Because of the heightened politics around the pardon power in the last decade, altering the Constitution to disallow pardoning of family members or the president pardoning him or herself might be publicly institutionally acceptable. The executive could reform the pardon power by making the recommendations from the Office of the Pardon Attorney more central to the president's decision instead of only a non-binding advisory opinion. This would ensure that a president puts facts over politics. The Department of Justice could establish additional rules about petitioning for a pardon, such as a conviction or time served before a pardon was granted. The justice department could also limit open pardons, like Ford's pardon of Nixon, or the Supreme Court could restrain the pardon power in the same way. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, NYU School of Law It is a disgrace. Biden did not go through the pardon board designed to limit his discretion, especially in cases of blatant conflicts of interest. I never have seen a breach of promise case. Could that be a waiver of his preclusive and exclusive right? Would it were so! Michael C. Dorf, Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School To strip presidents of the power to issue pardons would require a Constitutional amendment, which is extremely difficult to enact, so the question is almost entirely hypothetical. If it were possible to amend the Constitution on this point, I would favor a system like that used in many states, in which a multi-member board makes eligibility determinations for clemency or pardons. The difficulty, given political polarization, would be in keeping politics out of the appointment of members of the board. Terry M. Moe, William Bennett Munro Professor of Political Science, Stanford University; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution The presidential pardon power should be eliminated. There is no good reason for it. We have a judicial system and the rule of law for determining the guilt or innocence of defendants and meting out justice. Presidents have no special expertise for intervening, nor do they have the proper incentives to restrict themselves to doing good for society and righting wrongs. Allowing them to intervene opens the door to favoritism and corruption, and the nation has seen plenty of both, as presidents have acted to pardon their relatives, cronies, donors, and political allies for self-interested reasons that have nothing to do with justice, and indeed make a mockery of it. In granting presidents this power, the Framers of the Constitution made a huge mistake. As I said, it should be completely eliminated. The only way this can be done is through a constitutional amendment, however, and in practice that would be virtually impossible, as it requires two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and approval by three-fourths of the states. Efforts could be made instead to trim the pardon power through congressional legislation, but in my view these would be overturned as unconstitutional by the courts, particularly given the pro-president tilt of the current Supreme Court. And it's unlikely such legislation could be adopted anyway, as the president could simply veto it, and Congress would need two-thirds majorities in both chambers just to assure adoption. But that would just trigger court challenges, which I doubt the reforms could survive. Andrew Rudalevige, Thomas Brackett Reed Professor of Government, Bowdoin College No, I don't think the pardon power should be stripped from presidents. It is meant as part of the system of checks and balances, to serve as an emergency backstop against unjust court proceedings. As Alexander Hamilton put it, without it, "justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel." It can also serve a useful purpose in public policy, as when Thomas Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts—Biden's pardon of low-level marijuana crimes might be an example. But as that immediately suggests, what is 'good' public policy can be in the eye of the beholder. People have argued both ways, vehemently, over Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon! A Constitutional amendment restricting the pardon power does make sense to me. Presidential power should not be used for private purposes—for instance, granting clemency to family members whose rationale for such treatment is that they happen to be related by blood or marriage to the president. My amendment would also overturn the Supreme Court's overbroad 2024 decision making it impossible to hold a president criminally liable for any 'official' act, which certainly includes pardons and commutations. Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School; Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin; Author (with Cynthia Levinson) of Fault Lines in the Constitution Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 74 set out two arguments in behalf of the presidential pardoning power. The first focuses on inevitable imperfections in the criminal justice system, so that the pardon is a display of mercy alleviating injustice, whether in the initial conviction or, at least as likely, in the severity of the sentence. For a variety of reasons one might wonder whether it would be better in fact to have some kind of pardoning board instead of relying on a quasi-monarchical president to dispense such mercy. This is the general practice in the American states. That may not be the case, however, with the second rationale for pardons, which focuses far more on what might be called "reasons of state." Thus Hamilton notes that it might be highly desirable to pardon those accused of treason—or, perhaps, "insurrection"—as a method of trying to reintegrate the into the polity and to avoid making them martyrs. Thus the first notable pardons were of the participants in the Whiskey Rebellion, issued by George Washington himself. Similarly, his successor, John Adams, pardoned participants in the far less-well-known Fries' Rebellion. I should also mention my own personal favorite, which is Warrant G. Harding's commutation of the jail sentence imposed on Eugene V. Debs for his support of draft resistance against American entry into World War I. A vindictive Woodrow Wilson refused to alleviate Debs' ten-year sentence. Harding not only commuted the sentence, but also invited Debs to visit him at the White House! Less happy was Andrew Johnson's use of his pardoning powers after the Civil War to invite basically unrepentant former Confederates back into full membership in the American polity. And, of course, there is also Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon as a means of moving the country foreword after the ravages of Watergate. To put it mildly, there is far more controversy about Johnson's or Ford's pardons than of Washington's or Adams's (or Harding's)! But the point is that on must inevitably rely on the judgment of presidents, in these latter instances, to know when the iron fist of governmental power should be tempered by presidential pardons based on beliefs as to what best serves the deepest interests of the United States. Any president will confer with aides and associates, but, ultimately, I think the decision must remain the presidents' alone; in turn, they can be held accountable, either in elections or by historians, for the decisions they ultimately make. As it happens, the Biden pardon cannot possibly be defended in terms of serving the interests of the country as a whole. At best, it is the display of highly individualized mercy; at worst, it is the almost petulant use of personal power to serve exclusively the needs of the Biden family, understandable psychologically, but little better than embezzlement to pay for a Christmas gift save that the pardon is undoubtedly legal. The "how" is through a constitutional amendment, since the Constitution itself is quite clear about placing basically absolute power in the hands of presidents. The reality is that, perhaps for very good reasons, we are no longer willing to place the kind of blind trust in presidents that the Framers were willing to do when they contemplated George Washington filling the office. My own, distinctly minority, view is that we actually very much need a new constitutional convention where representatives of "we the people" could debate all sorts of issues related to the political structures, of which the presidential pardoning power is only a relatively minor example, that might have made good sense in 1787 but appear to be dysfunctional or even dangerous today.