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.
 
Honestly, no one would care about this if he didn’t sperg out about Jan 6 and claim “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!! Not even a president!” Like some kind of senile judge dredd who drank paint thinner all day.
Joe had a chance to give the Democrat an easy victory if they had just pardonned the jan 6 folks. Can you imagine the swing from center folks and the mindfuck on rightoid if trump did not pardon them but the dem would have?

Easy pardon, promote unity and how the world need to heal or some bullshit.
 
Just wait when Selenky surrenders parts of his country to russia and he tells Trump everything he knows about the Bidens.

Guess Trump can now go and say "See? they WERE using the justice system as they wanted and now he pardons his cokehead of a son. So I will now pardon every Jan 6 protestor"
 
Elaborate please, does it mean that being under a pardon automagically revokes your 5th ammendment rigts because you can now fuck over the people NOT pardoned without consequence?
You have a right against self incrimination. If you have been pardoned for a crime, given immunity, or given some blanket pardon like this there is no risk of incrimination and therefore no right to not testify. You absolutely can be forced to testify if you are not at risk of incriminating yourself.

His best bet is claiming it will incriminate him for actions before 2014 if he wants to not testify. But if the government wants to go hard (they won't Republicans are addicted to losing) they can agree to not use his statements to prosecute him and we're right back where we were with him being forced to testify.

This was a big point with Cosby being freed. The DA agreed to not use his statements made in the civil case as part of a criminal prosecution there by forcing him to testify against himself and then years later the government went back on the deal and used his statements from the civil case as evidence against him.
 
Thanks to Woodrow Wilson trying to force some Customs officials to testify in a corruption trial, Burdick v. United States grants Hunter Biden the right to reject his pardon if he wishes to retain his Fifth Amendment rights.
Ok but, do you really expect Hunter to give up his pardon to save his co-conspirators?
Lol lmao
 
Remember folks, USA and NATO went to war with Russia to secure oil and gas privileges on behalf of BlackRock and Biden Family.
We’re not at war with Russia. That’d be like saying the USSR went to war with the us during Vietnam.

That being said it’s clear Biden took bribes from Ukraine, China, and who knows who else during that time.
 
I’m not mad Biden pardoned Hunter, it was expected and understandable. I’m appalled he gave such a broad pardon, especially knowing they have a lot of skeletons in the closet known as Ukraine.
I mean, Hunter had his thumb in a lot of pies. He likes to dabble. A pardon identifying every illegal activity under a kike item would be a novel and would surely miss something he did.
 
Because there is no longer any legal jeopardy for Hunter, Hunter cannot plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. That means he can be subpoenaed to answer any and all questions about the family business. If he lies, that’s perjury. If he refuses to testify, that’s also a crime. So…
This is simply wrong, and just cope from the talking heads.
Hunter can still plead the Fifth for any question that implicates any crimes not covered by the pardon (including state crimes).
This means that any questions would have to be very narrowly tailored to only address crimes covered by the pardon. Sure, it’s possible congress may be able to get something useful out of Hunter, but it’s probably going to generate a ton of litigation beforehand. Meaning any useful information would likely take years to come to light, and that’s assuming that the courts even side with congress.

You have a right against self incrimination. If you have been pardoned for a crime, given immunity, or given some blanket pardon like this there is no risk of incrimination and therefore no right to not testify. You absolutely can be forced to testify if you are not at risk of incriminating yourself.
See above. Hunter will likely have a decent argument that the covered crimes incriminate him under state law, and thus he can have his cake and eat it too.
Not to say congress wouldn’t have strong legal arguments too, especially regarding any thing dealing with other countries. But sorting that whole issue out will take time, and will likely end up with the scope of congressional investigations being limited.
 
You gotta feel bad for this nigga.

1733154669569.png
 
This is simply wrong, and just cope from the talking heads.
Hunter can still plead the Fifth for any question that implicates any crimes not covered by the pardon (including state crimes).
This means that any questions would have to be very narrowly tailored to only address crimes covered by the pardon. Sure, it’s possible congress may be able to get something useful out of Hunter, but it’s probably going to generate a ton of litigation beforehand. Meaning any useful information would likely take years to come to light, and that’s assuming that the courts even side with congress.
The pardon was for all federal crimes in the last 10 years. You don't get state crimes for taking bribes from foreign nations, that is strictly federal shit.

To be clear, I don't think anything comes of this. Not because of strict legal arguments, but because the courts are fucked and Republicans are addicted to losing. My original comment was I'd rather have a congressional investigation into all of this and that in theory he could be forced to testify than picking him up on some small shit that came up after the pardon.
 
Back