By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Biden issued a full pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, citing unfair and politically motivated prosecution. The President maintained he did not interfere with the Department of Justice but believed Hunter was treated differently than others facing similar charges. A negotiated plea deal fell apart due to perceived political pressure, leading to the pardon. The President asserted that his son was targeted due to his familial relationship, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Read the original article here
President Joe Biden’s statement regarding the pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, centers on a core principle: a commitment to transparency and honesty with the American people. He believes in the fairness of the justice system, but also recognizes that political maneuvering has unduly influenced the process, resulting in what he considers a miscarriage of justice. The decision to pardon his son, he explains, was not made lightly and came after much deliberation. He hopes the public will understand the decision from both a father’s and a president’s perspective.
The pardon itself is comprehensive, covering offenses against the United States committed or potentially committed by Hunter Biden between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2024. This broad scope includes any charges or prosecutions handled by Special Counsel David C. Weiss, encompassing various court dockets in Delaware and California. The President’s rationale directly addresses the perception of political targeting, asserting that attempts to damage his son have, in effect, targeted him as well. He concludes that enough is enough.
This action has inevitably drawn comparisons to previous presidential pardons, particularly those granted by President Trump. The sheer volume and nature of Trump’s pardons—encompassing war criminals, political allies, family members, and individuals implicated in significant scandals—provide a contrasting backdrop to Biden’s decision. The President’s statement implicitly acknowledges this parallel, suggesting that criticism should be applied consistently across administrations. The underlying sentiment is one of weariness and a feeling that a double standard has prevailed.
The anticipated reactions from Republican critics are readily predictable. Questions surrounding potential uncharged crimes will inevitably arise, along with accusations of preferential treatment. Yet, there is a palpable sense that the President is acting with calculated defiance and strategic intent. The perspective that this is a deliberate countermove to ongoing Republican attacks is openly expressed, characterized by a sentiment of justifiable retaliation for what is perceived as unfair and politically motivated prosecution.
Further support for the pardon decision points to the perceived hypocrisy of the Republican party. Their consistent use of executive privilege and pardons for personal gain and to protect allies forms a significant part of the rationale. The argument is advanced that if Republicans are willing to utilize such measures without hesitation, Democrats should not hesitate to employ similar strategies when confronted with what they deem to be an unjust situation.
The timing of the pardon, especially in relation to other recent developments such as Trump’s announcement to potentially remove FBI Director Christopher Wray, is seen by some as deliberately provocative and strategically timed. This interpretation views the pardon not merely as an act of familial protection, but also as a calculated political maneuver to level the playing field, given the lack of adherence to established norms by the opposing party.
However, criticism of the president’s timing extends beyond purely political considerations. Some observers express disappointment that this willingness to engage in more robust political countermeasures was not displayed earlier in his presidency, particularly concerning the appointments of key figures in his administration or in holding Republicans to account for similar actions. This highlights an underlying tension between personal actions and broader political strategy.
Despite the controversy, the overwhelming sentiment among many supporters is one of approval, emphasizing that the pardon is viewed as a justifiable response to what is seen as an unfair and politically motivated prosecution. The parallel to Trump’s own actions further solidifies this position, turning the tables on the frequent criticisms leveled at the previous administration. There’s an acceptance that this is the ‘new normal’ of American politics, necessitating a more aggressive response to the perceived injustices and attacks. The statement itself, however, avoids direct confrontation, instead opting for a measured, reflective tone, highlighting the President’s adherence to transparency while acknowledging the deeply personal nature of the decision. Ultimately, the statement showcases a president grappling with the complexities of family, political duty, and an increasingly polarized national landscape.