Law President Biden pardons his son Hunter Biden - The decision, which was first reported by NBC News, is a reversal for the president, who repeatedly said he would not use his authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence.

Original article: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-issue-pardon-son-hunter-biden-rcna182369



WASHINGTON — Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Sunday night, a reversal for the president, who repeatedly said he would not use his executive authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence.

"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," Biden said in a statement.


Hunter Biden is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 12 for his conviction on federal gun charges. He also is set to be sentenced on Dec. 16 in a separate criminal case in which he pleaded guilty to federal tax evasion charges in September.

The pardon is expected to cover both his gun charges conviction and his guilty plea.

A senior White House official told NBC News, which was the first to report on the pardon decision, that the president decided over the weekend to grant his son a pardon and began to inform his senior aides Sunday.

The president also spoke about his son's struggles with addiction in his statement Sunday night, saying that his political opponents were trying to "break" him by going after Hunter.

"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," Biden said in his statement. "There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough."

Biden, 82, is using his pardon power to ensure Hunter Biden does not spend time in jail as he nears the end of his term in the White House and has no future election to face. In recent months, he has said he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence.

“I will not pardon him,” he said in June after a jury found Hunter Biden guilty on three federal gun charges.

The president has discussed pardoning his son with some of his closest aides at least since Hunter Biden’s conviction in June, said two people with direct knowledge of the discussions about the matter. They said it was decided at the time that he would publicly say he would not pardon his son even though doing so remained on the table.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters last month that Biden’s position has not changed.

“We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is ‘no,’” she said.

Asked Monday whether the president is still committed to not granting clemency for his son, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said: “The president has spoken to this.” Pressed about whether Biden’s position has changed, Bates replied, “I don’t have anything to add what he said already.”

First lady Jill Biden has also said her husband would not pardon their son.

“Joe and I both respect the judicial system, and that’s the bottom line,” she said in an interview in June.

Hunter Biden’s criminal trial in June was the first involving the child of a sitting president.

Pardoning him after that trial would have ignited a political firestorm for his father, who was campaigning for re-election. Republicans have for years attacked Hunter Biden over his foreign business dealings and accused him and the president of corruption. They have also argued that Hunter Biden was getting special treatment by the Justice Department because of his father’s political power.

GOP criticism reached a peak in July 2023 when Hunter Biden pleaded guilty in a deal with federal prosecutors over the tax and gun charges, which collapsed after a judge raised questions about it. That development led Attorney General Merrick Garland a couple weeks later to appoint the U.S. attorney investigating Hunter Biden, David Weiss, as a special counsel.

Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race in July, but a pardon before last month's election also could have generated political blowback on the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris after she took his place on the Democratic ticket.

Together, the 12 counts Hunter Biden is convicted of or has pleaded guilty to carry a maximum prison sentence of 42 years. But the maximum sentences typically are not given out for convictions of these crimes. The Justice Department has said, for instance, that while the tax charges carry a maximum sentence of 17 years, sentences are typically less than that.

Asked in an interview in June whether he would rule out a pardon for his son, Biden answered, “Yes.”

Days later, after Hunter Biden was convicted on federal gun charges by a jury in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, the president said in a statement that he would respect the outcome. He then told reporters he would abide by the jury’s decision.

“I’m extremely proud of my son Hunter,” Biden said. “He has overcome an addiction. He’s one of the brightest, most decent men I know, and I am satisfied that I’m not going to do anything. I said I abide by the jury decision. I will do that, and I will not pardon him.”

Neil Eggleston, who was White House counsel to President Barack Obama, told NBC News that “if I were his White House counsel, I would encourage him to pardon his son.” He said he has not been contacted or consulted by the White House about any pardon preparations.

“The clemency power has few limitations and certainly would extend to a Hunter Biden pardon,” Eggleston said.

Eggleston’s opinion echoes that of other former Justice Department and White House officials previously involved in presidential pardons who told NBC News that they thought Biden should exercise this power in advance of the incoming Trump administration.
 
Putting aside my own political leanings, this is my thought:

As a man, as a father, your most sacred duty is to raise your children to be good people.
The only way to do that effectively when they go down a fucked up path (I.e. breaking the law), is to take your hands off the wheel and let them suffer the consequences.

President Biden is a failure of a President, a failure of a man, and a failure of a father.
Your most important role as a father is to set a good example. Your most important role as President is to set a good example.

If his son gets a pardon simply because he is the son of a president—why should anyone else be punished for these crimes?
 
If his son gets a pardon simply because he is the son of a president—why should anyone else be punished for these crimes?
uuh, uhm, the justice system has been heavy politized and vengeful for the last couple of years. We don't know how that happened or who caused it but with Trump in charge I'm sure he will use the tools that we someone created to persecute certain individuals.
That won't be good for Hunter who's committed multiple crimes and documented them on video or in writing. He wouldn't get a fair trial in this climate. Cease your investigations!
 
Anyone actually interested in the historical origins and philosophy behind the pardon power should check out Federalist No. 74 by Alexander Hamilton.

It is a power essential to the chief executive officer (state governor or President), and one of the critical checks and balances necessary to stop the power of a branch of the government, in this case the judiciary, from being unlimited and without recourse for abuse.

It is a great check in theory. It's a shame that it gets used and abused used so often as it does. Usually, when not political in reason, it's for idiots, 70s/80s leftist terrorists, old criminals of a certain shade, and letter people. This case here though is on a whole other level.
 
Joe should pardon himself while he is throwing pardons here and there
Would you be surprised if he did? Hell, at this point I expect Trump to pardon himself as well if a Democrat wins the next election. I won't be surprised if sweeping mass pardons of politicans and other political operatives becomes the norm every time the presidency switches parties now that Pandora's box has been opened.

Edit: I'm talking about the kind Joe gave out to Hunter. Everyone and their mother in the political party getting a decade long blank pardon as the president leaves office as a fuck you to the next administration.
 
Última edición:
Would you be surprised if he did? Hell, at this point I expect Trump to pardon himself as well if a Democrat wins the next election. I won't be surprised if sweeping mass pardons of politicans and other political operatives becomes the norm every time the presidency switches parties now that Pandora's box has been opened.
Always has been.

I can't see getting all bent out of shape about something that is as old as time. I'm generally more pissed by the pardons that haven't been given (like Assange and Snowden) than those that are, which at worst make me roll my eyes.

The practice of targeting political opponents for bogus prosecutions is way more disturbing than the practice of pardoning political allies or even family members.
 
Would you be surprised if he did? Hell, at this point I expect Trump to pardon himself as well if a Democrat wins the next election.
I want to see him do it not because I think it's a good idea but it just presents an amusing legal issue. I want to see what happens.
 
I want to see him do it not because I think it's a good idea but it just presents an amusing legal issue. I want to see what happens.
I don't really see any constitutional arguments against the president giving himself a full pardon of all federal crimes he every may have committed since birth on the last day of their term. There is no, "except for the president" clause in the description of that power.

I'd argue the removing of the ability to pardon in cases of Congregational impeachment strengthens the idea that the president can otherwise pardon himself, since it explicitly takes into account the president trying to use the pardon as a way of bypassing a congressional check on his power.

We already accept time range based blanket pardons, so the only change would be who it applies to. I'd expect the supreme Court to slap down one of the other components of it rather than it just being the president applying it to themself. Blanket pardons for any federal crime during a time period seems to have a much shakier foundation.
 
Última edición:
I don't really see any constitutional arguments against the president giving himself a full pardon of all federal crimes he every may have committed since birth on the last day of their term. There is no, "except for the president" clause in the description of that power.
The issue would be how it would have been interpreted at the time of the framing, including from sources like the Federalist Papers. So how the royal pardon operated in 1789 in England would also be of relevance, along with an historical overview of the entire timeline of having such an executive power.

The Constitution does explicitly make an exception "except in Cases of Impeachment" which is generally how a President would be prosecuted in the first place. (This is also why the nonsensical attempts to prosecute for "insurrection" are bullshit since Trump was already tried in the only way he could be for that and acquitted in the impeachment trial.)
 
tangenal
1734029909729.png
...
Burry the lead
1734030444997.png
 
Última edición:

Ching chong joe strikes again. Remember that this was the guy running cover for the ccp every step of the way in the early days of covid all the way through getting power. This is next level though. You want to talk about foreign influence.. let's start with the biggest source of political shill armies and misinformation trying to undermine our society and way of life.. just happening to get protected the party of divisive identity politics and war on freedom. Same with the corporate world suddenly going woke while at the same type trying to get in bed with the ccp as hard as possible. Don't even get started on higher edu, the epicenter of woke ideology and also nearly fully owned and majorly funded by ccp money... hmmmm :thinking:
 
Which if I remember correctly is one of the things Hunter Biden was found guilty of.

I love firearms about as much as anyone can. If you think felons should own them you've let ideology override your own common sense/survival instincts.
All a felony means is that you were convicted of a crime and were then sentenced (or could be sentenced) to more than a year of imprisonment. The idea that felons should be barred from owning firearms by default is ludicrous.
 
All a felony means is that you were convicted of a crime and were then sentenced (or could be sentenced) to more than a year of imprisonment. The idea that felons should be barred from owning firearms by default is ludicrous.
Congress had to figure out how to disarm as many niggers as possible when they passed the Gun Control Act back in 68
 
All a felony means is that you were convicted of a crime and were then sentenced (or could be sentenced) to more than a year of imprisonment. The idea that felons should be barred from owning firearms by default is ludicrous.

You haven’t encountered many felons have you? Seventy percent or more are scum.
 
The idea that felons should be barred from owning firearms by default is ludicrous.
I think it should only be for felonies, and only felonies like violent felonies that directly implicate fitness to own a firearm. That would eliminate misdemeanor domestic violence, but at the same time, I think more of that kind of violence needs to be a felony in the first place.

There are also a few I think should basically fuck you for life, like any kind of sexual violence especially against children, treason, first degree murder, etc.

Anything less serious should be eligible for reinstatement.
 
I think it should only be for felonies, and only felonies like violent felonies that directly implicate fitness to own a firearm. That would eliminate misdemeanor domestic violence, but at the same time, I think more of that kind of violence needs to be a felony in the first place.

There are also a few I think should basically fuck you for life, like any kind of sexual violence especially against children, treason, first degree murder, etc.

Anything less serious should be eligible for reinstatement.

I would add that if you truly did something aweful that warrents your ability to own a firearm permanently revoked, then you should never be let back in society at all. I don't believe there should be an inbetween where you aren't in prison but no restoration of all your freedom. It should be you are either fully free, or fully in prison (till either execution or old age)
 
Anything less serious should be eligible for reinstatement.
Maybe that's the ideal?

You lose your right to own a gun if you commit a violent felony, but can apply to have it reinstated if you can go a nominal amount of time after release without re-offending or being a general misanthrope?

Though I admit I'd have no faith any such review system wouldn't eventually decay into the usual government body that either rubber-stamps everything sent to it? Or denies everything categorically that's sent to it, making it just a useless affirming extension of what we already have....
 
I would add that if you truly did something aweful that warrents your ability to own a firearm permanently revoked, then you should never be let back in society at all. I don't believe there should be an inbetween where you aren't in prison but no restoration of all your freedom. It should be you are either fully free, or fully in prison (till either execution or old age)
I actually kind of agree with this. I am not sure if we could even work something out like that on a matter of practicality, but if you are such an absolutely worthless human you shouldn't even have the means of self-defense, because you're too fucking evil to be trusted with guns, maybe you just shouldn't even be out in society at all.
You lose your right to own a gun if you commit a violent felony, but can apply to have it reinstated if you can go a nominal amount of time after release without re-offending or being a general misanthrope?
That's always the problem. You can always say "in an ideal world, this is how things should work." And then it gets to "so the government should do. . ." No it shouldn't because it ALWAYS does the fucking WRONG thing.

So the less the government does the better, usually.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo