Listen To Story Above
The recent pardon of Hunter Biden’s federal gun and tax charges by his father has sparked controversy, particularly given President Biden’s previous assurance that he wouldn’t use his presidential powers in such a manner.
The timing and execution of the pardon proved especially controversial – announced at the conclusion of Thanksgiving weekend, followed by the President’s immediate departure to Angola. In his statement, Biden defended his decision, stating: “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.” He referenced a “carefully negotiated plea deal” that fell apart in court, blaming “political opponents in Congress,” though the judge’s concerns about the deal’s constitutionality were the actual cause.
Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter is the most sweeping Presidential pardon since Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon.
It represents the deep corruption and contempt for the rule of law that has characterized the Biden presidency.
But it is also important for another reason:… pic.twitter.com/deOsh1NbKa
— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) December 2, 2024
Biden concluded his statement saying, “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.”
The scope of the pardon extends beyond the immediate charges, covering all potential federal crimes back to 2014 – notably coinciding with Hunter’s appointment to Burisma’s board. This comprehensive pardon potentially shields Hunter from prosecution for foreign business dealings and FARA violations, activities in which his father maintained a peripheral presence.
A significant legal question has emerged regarding whether this pardon might inadvertently force Hunter to testify about past events. The Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination becomes void when there’s no risk of criminal charges. While this principle hasn’t been tested with high-level presidential pardons, it raises interesting possibilities for congressional investigations.
BREAKING: Scott Jennings just took a blowtorch to Democrats over Joe Biden's pardon of Hunter Biden.
"NEVER AGAIN do I want to hear 'Trump's a liar, you can't believe anything he says. Trump will abuse his power. Trump will only use the system to benefit himself, his family.'… pic.twitter.com/AvFPUVBgNo
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 2, 2024
Several complications exist with this scenario. The pardon doesn’t protect against state charges, providing Hunter potential grounds to maintain silence. Additionally, his documented substance abuse during the relevant period could affect testimony reliability. Furthermore, the precedent for compelling testimony from presidential pardon recipients remains unclear, as evidenced by the handling of Nixon’s pardon during the Democrat-controlled Congress of that era.
If courts determine the pardon effectively grants immunity and requires testimony, it could significantly impact both Bidens. While any legal consequences for the president might be mitigated by factors similar to those in the classified documents case – where his age and perceived mental state influenced prosecution decisions – compelled testimony from Hunter could definitively alter public perception of the Biden family narrative.
The pardon’s ultimate implications remain uncertain, but they could range from minor political embarrassment to serious legal consequences, depending on the courts’ interpretation and Hunter’s potential testimony about family business dealings.
