« Fascinating account of concerns and chatter over Prez-Elect Trump's pardon plans for Jan 6 defendants | Main | George Santos, AG Garland's charging memo, Pam Bondi, oh my »
December 1, 2024
Prez Biden issues full pardon to his son Hunter
Upon seeing this news as reported by the New York Times, under the headline "Biden Issues a ‘Full and Unconditional Pardon’ of His Son Hunter Biden," I am tempted to joke that Prez Biden decided to use the long holiday weekend to pardon one last turkey. Here are the basics:
President Biden fully and unconditionally pardoned his son Hunter on Sunday night, using the power of his office to wave aside years of legal troubles, including a federal conviction for illegally buying a gun, and Republican attacks that hounded the Biden family throughout the last four years.
In a statement issued by the White House, Mr. Biden said he had decided to issue the executive grant of clemency for his son “for those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024.”
He said he did so because the charges against his son were politically motivated and designed to hurt the president politically. “The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election,” Mr. Biden said in the statement. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong.”...
Many of the president’s allies and critics had expected him to use the unique authority vested only in his office, even though the president’s spokeswoman had denied for months that Mr. Biden had any intention of doing so. NBC News first reported Sunday evening that Mr. Biden had in fact decided to pardon his son.
The reversal by Mr. Biden came just 50 days before he is set to leave the White House and transfer power to President-elect Donald J. Trump, who spent years attacking Hunter Biden over his legal and personal issues as a part of series of broadsides against Mr. Biden’s family....
It is not the first time a president has used his executive power to commute the sentence of a family member. On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother Roger Clinton for old cocaine charges. A month before leaving office, Mr. Trump pardoned his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, for tax evasion and other crimes.
Both Roger Clinton and Charles Kushner had long since completed their prison terms, and the pardons were about forgiveness or vindication rather than avoiding time behind bars. Over the weekend, Mr. Trump said that he would nominate Charles Kushner to be the U.S. ambassador to France.
The full statement from Prez Biden is available at this link, and it concludes this way:
For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded. Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice -- and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.
I fully understand why a father would want to exempt a troubled son from the strictures of the criminal law, but I do not respect a President's decision to show grace here only to his child when there are many thousands of others who have sought clemency and arguably merit grace even more than does this father's privileged son.
December 1, 2024 at 08:01 PM | Permalink
Comments
I suspect there will be many more pardons to come. A blanket pardon for anyone and everyone who served in his administration (including himself) would be a good start. The voting public no longer cares about “norms,” so why not? It’s not like he plans to run for office ever again. It would be especially interesting if he pardoned Trump and/or the J6 defendants, as a peace offering.
Posted by: Atticus F | Dec 1, 2024 9:39:50 PM
Giving special favors to your family enabled solely by your public office is the definition of an abuse of that office. Not to mention that he repeatedly and emphatically lied about it (just as his Vice President repeatedly and emphatically lied about his mental fitness to remain in office).
This is not by any means the whole reason we now have DJT, but it's part of it. What a disgrace.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 1, 2024 10:14:40 PM
Prof., you write, " I do not respect a President's decision to show grace here only to his child when there are many thousands of others who have sought clemency and arguably merit grace even more than does this father's privileged son." He's still got 6 weeks left to pardon lots of folks. Be patient.
Posted by: anon | Dec 1, 2024 11:23:24 PM
But the stated rationale isn't grace, it is the principle of not prosecuting people because of their (or their parents') political views. If one accepts the premise -- and I probably would on the gun charge -- then the number of similarly situated people seems much lower than "many thousands," and it's not irrational to view those whose prosecutions were partisan or other biases payback as different from those prosecuted by non-partisan civil servants in the ordinary fashion.
Posted by: Jason | Dec 1, 2024 11:25:16 PM
I would also like to see much more use of the pardon power and also am strongly opposed to this one (and Trump's pardon of the father of his son-in-law, and Clinton's pardon of his half brother....)
Like the founders, I do not think the power should be limited, but this one awful
Posted by: John | Dec 2, 2024 12:12:11 AM
I wonder what actions by the incoming Republican administration are licensed by Biden's unprincipled decision today that Republicans hadn't already decided were licensed several times over.
Hard to see how this is an "oh, NOW it's on, MFers" moment for the right wing, but I am always impressed by the resourcefulness of their spin machine.
Posted by: Frank Fosdick | Dec 2, 2024 1:05:48 AM
Jason: a good "political" point, though I still think this pardon is full of "grace." In his statement, Biden says the plea deal that was disrupted was "a fair, reasonable resolution." Biden could have commuted the outcome for Hunter to the terms of that deal rather than a full pardon. (The rough parallel would be how GWB commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence, though Trump later gave him a full pardon.) Moreover, the Hunter pardon covers ALL criminal activity over 11 years (from Jan 2014 through Dec 1 2024). Again, I get those broad terms are intended to head off possible future "political" prosecutions, but that's a whole lot of immunity.
Finally, there are surely tens of thousands of people who can (reasonably?) claim their prosecution was or could be "purely political." Of course, the whole Jan 6 cohort (which numbers at least a few thousand) makes that claim. And, since politics always plays a role in driving federal prosecutorial priorities, I tend to view all federal prosecutions as "political" to some degree.
That all said, your point is a sound one in that Biden's stated rationale enables him to cling to the (false) notion that his child's prosecution is a "one-off" and that the federal criminal justice system does not treat others' children in a comparable manner. Perhaps Biden will soon use his clemency pen for others --- I suspect he will --- but his clemency record to date is disappointing and this grant does not improve his record in my eyes.
Posted by: Doug B | Dec 2, 2024 9:06:58 AM
Well, this shows that Joe Biden is a dirty liar and all around bad guy. First of all, Hunter Biden is a dissolute slimeball. He took money from the ChiComs and various unsavory figures in Russian, and his Board seat with Burisma--well we all know that hire is due to Hunter's vast oil and gas expertise. Also, he claims to have paid his taxes, plus all penalties and interest. The reporting isn't clear, but does that include the taxes (plus penalties and interest) from the years for which the SOL ran?
Second, the pardon would extend to his cavorting with young prostitutes--were all of them of legal age?
Third, the drivel Biden put out in justification of this sickening pardon is risible. His own Administration politicized justice. How can one possibly justify the difference in treatment of Peter Navarro and Eric Holder when it comes to contempt of Congress? And then there's the Mark Houck raid etc. etc. Hunter Biden took money from our enemies--the American people never got a full accounting of that.
Fourth, it's really hard for the Bidens to claim that Hunter was signled out. He singled himself out. He confessed to what he did in his memoir, and the tax stuff was just brazen. He skated on FARA violations and, as I noted above, crimes regarding his cavorting with prostitutes.
Regarding the J6 defendants, Biden's DOJ prosecuted people who were waved into the Capitol Bldg by the cops. There needs to be a reckoning there.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 2, 2024 9:37:00 AM
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/12/the-biden-paradox.php
An interesting take.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 2, 2024 9:41:04 AM
Given the (literally scandalous) recent history of pardoning, we need to think about reforms. One would be to forbid post-election pardons except in cases of indisputable factual innocence. Another would be to give Congress the chance to nullify a pardon by a 60% vote of each house. Both reforms would require a constitutional amendment, but this stuff has gone way too far and is breeding a very unhealthy cynicism.
I'd be interested if anyone has more reforms to propose.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 2, 2024 10:45:50 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-biden-crime-family-gets-away-with-it/
I am no fan of Jim Geraghty, but I think he's right here.
Bill, I actually do not agree. The pardon power will be abused, but an unfettered pardon power probably does more good than harm.
The DOJ should still investigate whether some of the prostitutes on the videos were underage.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 2, 2024 11:16:44 AM
Bill: Many states have a board of some sort that makes recommendations to the Gov (which are binding in some states, advisory in others such as Ohio). Those boards generally make the clemency process more regular and transparent. I'd not propose such a process as a mandate at the federal level, but I'd like to see it function as a tether (eg, no more than, say, 25% of clemency grants can be made outside a board process).
Notably, Rep Pressley introduced the FIX Clemency Act a few years ago to try to set up an advisory clemency board, but it has gone nowhere (and it would not place any limits on the power, which you rightly note would require a constitutional amendment): https://pressley.house.gov/the-fix-clemency-act
Posted by: Doug B | Dec 2, 2024 11:17:24 AM
I suggest this reform: "The President shall not pardon the father-in-law of his daughter and then make that person the ambassador to France."
Posted by: Attticus F | Dec 2, 2024 1:37:52 PM
Regardless of the legal merits or demerits of this decision as a political matter it is a rhetorical gift to Trump. Because in the future any pardons that are open to criticism will get the reply that Joe Biden pardoned his son.
@ Frank. It's not a question of license...it is a question of justification. I don't think that the pardon increases Trump's degree of freedom what it does is give him additional cover. Trump can now use Bidens pardon as a great deflection and useful content for whataboutism.
Posted by: Dany | Dec 2, 2024 5:01:31 PM
Atticus F is right. Kushner the soon to be ambassador to France is a real piece of work: he pleaded guilty to 18 counts of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering.
The witness tampering charge arose from Kushner's retaliation against William Schulder, his sister Esther's husband, who was cooperating with federal investigators against Kushner. Kushner hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, arranged to record a sexual encounter between the two, and had the tape sent to his sister.
Posted by: anon | Dec 2, 2024 5:12:49 PM
Dany --
The immediate problem with this pardon is not what Trump might or might not do in the future (which neither you nor anyone else knows). The problem is that it's a gross abuse of office, as even the NYT admits. The other main problem is that the President flagrantly lied about this matter before the election, and now -- past the time of political accountability -- discovers that his (54 year-old) "child" was abused by a Special Counsel MERRICK GARLAND appointed.
Good grief. I would ask Joe Biden the classic question, "Have you no shame?" but the answer is already obvious.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 2, 2024 8:59:29 PM
Mr. Otis says that Biden's pardon of his son is a "gross abuse of office." And well it may be. However, does he believe the same of Trump's pardon of his son-in-law's father, who pled guilty to numerous crimes and who hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, arranged to record a sexual encounter between the two, and had the tape sent to his sister? Does Mr. Otis believe it a gross abuse of office for Trump to appoint that same man as ambassador to France?
Posted by: anon | Dec 2, 2024 11:47:33 PM
It's funny how anon will pose questions like that, but will never ever answer them. The same is true of Doug. I'll answer: Bill Clinton broke many taboos when it comes to pardons. Kushner did his time and was law-abiding afterwards. Is the pardon laudable? No, it is not. It is a "gross abuse of office?" Hardly.
Now let's see if you can answer questions, anon. First: Do you think that the DOJ/FBI should look into the women in the videos on Hunter's laptop to ensure that they were of legal age>
Second: How is it ok for a Democrat Administration to prosecute Peter Navarro but fail to prosecute Eric Holder, when Holder's contempt was far more serious>
Third: Are you ok with the SWAT raid on Mark Houck's home?
Posted by: federalist | Dec 3, 2024 9:43:44 AM
anon --
As Doug will be able to confirm, I have used my Substack dozens of times to criticize Trump. I've been in Internet Land long enough, however, to have learned to eschew invitations to deflect the topic of the story du jour (here, the Biden pardon) into yet another, and the ten zillionth, story about Trump. If you care to know my opinion of Trump and the Kushner bunch, the name of my Substack is "Ringside at the Reckoning."
In the meantime, do you believe the Hunter pardon, and Joe Biden's previous numerous, flagrant lies about it, is (not "may be") a gross abuse of office?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 3, 2024 10:41:32 AM
Bill, I think it fair to point to others' actions to contextualize a specific act. So here, I think it's fair to bring up Kushner, but anon isn't doing that to advance the ball. He's just deflecting. Trump's Kushner pardon is far different from Biden's pardon of Hunter, and anon should acknowledge that in his post, but of course he does not. Personally, I am laughing at all the whining about Kash Patel when that crew was good with that kook, Kristen Clarke.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 3, 2024 11:00:09 AM
federalist --
Yes, others' actions CAN sometimes contextualize a different, specific act. But as you correctly observe, anon isn't doing that to advance the ball, but instead to deflect the subject of this entry away from Biden and, for the eight zillionth time, onto Trump.
The deflection is necessary because, as I strongly suspect anon knows, Biden's action is indefensible and therefore needs to get pushed behind the curtain right quick.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 3, 2024 11:34:37 AM
"Biden's action is indefensible and therefore needs to get pushed behind the curtain right quick." Yup.
Notice how all those who rag on Trump never can explain why it's ok not to be repulsed by him showering with his 13 yo daughter. Ugh..
That's what I'd love to see on CNN: "Guys, this is a man who showered with his adolescent daughter, according to her diary. Is shame even a concept to him?"
Posted by: federalist | Dec 3, 2024 2:11:40 PM
Yeah, I think the pardon should have at least had some carveouts roughly consistent with the plea deal. But when I say that the Hunter Biden addict-in-possession prosecution was "political" in a very uncommon way, I mean that it's almost inconceivable that that charge would have been brought but for his father's political activity. In contrast to Hunter Biden's business dealings (which were enabled by his status as the then-VP's son), neither his addiction nor his gun possession were in any way related to his father's office. And there's something especially disturbing and dangerous about using prosecutorial power deliberately to target the kids of one's political opponents over conduct that is routinely ignored absent special circumstances. In contrast, there's no history of (e.g.) looking the other way when people storm the Capitol and make Congress flee.
As for the broad scope of the pardon, a fairly broad scope was needed if the goal was to protect Hunter against further politically-motivated prosecutions. He was investigated pretty thoroughly, and so the risk of any undisclosed serious criminality seems fairly low in comparison to the risk of malicious prosecution. Of course, most bad things Hunter could have done would still be subject to state prosecution. Still, I would have at least excluded a laundry list of crimes that we would expect a federal prosecutor to pursue no matter what Hunter's last name was.
Finally, I have mixed feelings about the pardon at all -- mainly because pardoning your own son is pretty problematic. But I do think Hunter Biden was very atypical, maybe almost unique, in some important ways as a federal criminal defendant.
Posted by: Jason | Dec 4, 2024 12:19:02 AM
"I mean that it's almost inconceivable that that charge would have been brought but for his father's political activity."
Yes, because no one would have paid for his book, which, as you know, disclosed his crimes. And don't you want to know whether some of those prostitutes on the laptop are of age or not? And there is the FARA stuff, no?
Finally, J6--the charges against Trump (now dismissed) were ridiculous. All you need to about Jack Smith's BS indictment is that he called Mike Pence's duties "ceremonial." What does that even mean in this context? He was performing his Constitutional role as President of the Senate. Just as I have the right to call up a Congresscritter and tell him/her that he/she should vote against certifying Trump's election, Trump had the right to ask/tell Pence to try to get his electors seated. There was no fraud here.
It is curious, indeed, that the 2020 election had more voters than the 2024 election.
"In contrast, there's no history of (e.g.) looking the other way when people storm the Capitol and make Congress flee." Hmm. Trump was whisked away by US Secret Service during a riot outside of the WH which culminated in the burning of a DC church. Don't recall the Biden Administration going to the ends of the earth to prosecute.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 4, 2024 9:10:36 AM
In pardoning his son, Biden did abuse the pardon power. But in so doing, he was following the precedents set by Trump, Carter, and others. Also consider the unusual times: in their infinite wisdom, the American people have elected as President a sexual predator and a convicted felon. Who would have thought we would come to this. "O tempora, O mores."
Posted by: Mary quite Contrary | Dec 5, 2024 12:14:21 PM
Mary, you are wrong--Trump is not a convicted felon, and the "sexual predator" part? That seems dubious given that E. Jean Carroll couldn't even state the year in which the sexual assault occurred.
And no, Biden was not following Trump precedent---let's get that right.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 5, 2024 1:19:29 PM
Federalist says Trump is not a convicted felon; and I say take it up with the jury. He says the sexual predator part "seems dubious"; I say take it up (1) with the jury who found that Trump finger-f___'d Ms. Caroll; with (2) the 20 or so women who have alleged Trump touched them sexually without consent; and with (3) Trump himself who candidly admitted that he likes to "grab" women by the p_-y. As I said a felon and a sexual predator, a real role model for our children and grandchildren.
Posted by: Mary quite Contrary | Dec 5, 2024 1:55:45 PM
Mary, the conviction isn't a thing until the judge enters the judge, and given Bragg's latest maneuver (designed to foreclose appellate review) I'd say that even the prosecutor isn't so bullish on the verdict. As for E. Jean Carroll, given that she couldn't even name the year that the alleged assault occurred, I'd say that the jury is all wet.
And anon couldn't answer simple questions. What a crew you guys are.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 11, 2024 10:39:10 AM
