By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The free press faces increasing threats, jeopardizing America’s future. HuffPost, unlike other news organizations succumbing to political pressure, remains committed to unbiased reporting. Continued operation depends on reader support; contributions, even through free account creation, are crucial to maintaining free access to news.
Read the original article here
Geraldo Rivera’s recent comments regarding President Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, offer a sharp contrast to the reactions of many Trump supporters. Rivera’s perspective highlights a perceived double standard in how the two situations are being treated. He points out the seemingly hypocritical outrage directed at Biden, while simultaneously overlooking far more egregious actions by Donald Trump.
Rivera emphasizes the deeply personal aspect of Biden’s decision, suggesting that most fathers would act similarly to protect their children. He frames the pardon as a father’s act driven by familial loyalty rather than political maneuvering. This human element, Rivera implies, is often lost in the political fervor surrounding such events.
The core of Rivera’s argument centers on the stark difference between Biden’s pardon and Trump’s actions. Rivera uses the pointed statement, “It’s not like he appointed him Ambassador to France,” to draw attention to Trump’s nomination of Charles Kushner, his son-in-law’s father, for a high-profile diplomatic position. This underscores the hypocrisy, as Kushner had previously been pardoned by Trump after a conviction for serious crimes.
This comparison casts Biden’s pardon in a far less damning light. The gravity of Trump’s actions, including the pardon of Kushner and others, is implicitly contrasted with the relatively less impactful nature of Biden’s decision. Rivera subtly suggests that the outrage directed at Biden is misplaced, given the scale of actions undertaken by the previous administration.
The comments further highlight the broader context of Trump’s pardon record. Trump’s use of presidential pardons, it’s implied, was far more extensive and controversial, seemingly used to reward loyalists and shield associates from legal consequences. This contrasts with Biden’s single pardon of his son, making Biden’s action seem comparatively less significant in the context of potential abuses of power.
The contrast between Biden’s actions and Trump’s significantly more extensive use of pardons underscores Rivera’s point about a double standard. The selective outrage and lack of consistent application of ethical standards to both situations is highlighted by this comparison. Rivera’s statement serves as a challenge to those who are quick to condemn Biden without acknowledging the far greater transgressions of his predecessor.
Rivera’s intervention serves as a call for more balanced and nuanced assessments of political events. The suggestion is that a thorough evaluation necessitates a comparative analysis of similar instances, preventing a selective outrage that disproportionately focuses on one side while ignoring actions from the other.
In essence, Rivera’s argument frames Biden’s pardon not as a political calculation, but as a father’s decision, a decision that pales in comparison to the extensive and arguably more problematic use of pardons under the previous administration. This comparison undermines the narrative that Biden’s action is uniquely scandalous or even particularly out of line with historical precedents. This serves as a broader call for a more objective and measured perspective on political controversies, urging viewers to consider the full context before rendering judgment.