Before I address the merits of President Biden giving his son Hunter a full pardon, I want to address the timing. It was done on December 1. Various reasons were given as to that particular date, such as it was after Thanksgiving, and it was before Hunter was going to be sentenced.
I have my own theory. The day before, Trump nominated his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, as U.S. Ambassador to France. During his first presidency, Trump gave the senior Kushner a pardon. I do not need to go through the sordid details of the underlying events that led to part of Kushner’s conviction. They were mentioned again in the media when Kushner was given the ambassadorship. Biden may have figured that there would be an uproar over Kushner, who not only received a pardon but received a prestigious position which would lessen the reaction to his pardon. If there was no reaction, then people do not care. What Biden did not realize is that there are two standards. When it comes to Trump, it is known that he is an amoral individual so pardoning his mechutan, and then giving him an important position is no shock.
Biden, on the other hand, has held himself out as an institutionalist who respects the system including the legal system. Thus, for many, it was a shock when he gave the pardon after repeatedly promising not to.
If Hunter had not been his son, I doubt that there would have been such an outcry. The charges that he was convicted of, plus Hunter getting his life together, could have led to a pardon. There have been much worse convictions that were pardoned or commuted. One example is Shalom Weiss, who was responsible for the largest insurance company collapse as a result of his siphoning off more than $450 million. He was sentenced to 845 years in prison. Trump commuted his sentence. His story is also an episode of the TV show American Greed.
They may have been other people who could relate to a parent trying to help their son. That is a laudable idea, but when you are president of the United States, you have to act with a higher standard.
To me, the worst part was Biden’s justification and the scope of the pardon. Biden claimed, “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. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases. 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.”
All three statements are inaccurate. The charges came as a result of a thorough investigation led by special counsel who Biden kept on to investigate. The deal unraveled because there was a question as to what the deal covered and the judge had some issues with the deal. Also, Hunter raised the issue of selective prosecution and lost in two courts. One of the courts in dismissing the case based on the pardon chastised the president for making this claim. Biden was tried and convicted by a jury and pled guilty because he was guilty.
Then Biden continued, “I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.” This is the same argument that Trump repeatedly made in addressing the four cases brought against him, one of which was tried before a jury and resulted in a conviction.
It is bad enough that Trump has gone after our justice system because of a personal need to do so. Now Biden is doing the same thing. People need to have confidence in the justice system. When those in power look at the needs of themselves and family over the needs of society, that is a dangerous precedent.
Another problem with Hunter’s pardon is the scope of the pardon. It was not limited to the two cases for which Hunter was convicted or pled to but covered all offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024. You do not make such a blanket pardon unless the President knows of other conduct that Hunter has done which could land him in legal trouble.
Now there is talk about preemptive pardons because of the fear of retribution prosecutions threatened by Trump and Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee for FBI director. By making this argument for future pardons, the assumption is that the legal system cannot protect those who are wrongfully targeted. That is a road that is fraught with dangerous consequences. There are many layers in the system to protect a person from being targeted in such prosecution, whether in the US Attorney’s office, the FBI, proceeding before a grand jury and trial before a jury and judicial supervision and review at the trial and appellate level.
Biden may have decided that at this stage of his life, he wants to do what is best for his family. He may feel that he owes no allegiance to the Democratic Party that forced him out. However, he owes a duty to the American people to do what he always said he stood for by standing for the institutions of government, whether executive, legislative, or legal. At this time, when all of them are under assault, we need to stand up for them.
Biden’s pardon and his statement rationalizing it are a stain on his legacy.
Warren S. Hecht is a local attorney. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
