Thanks, Sharon. I think we need to be talking more about the immense concern that Trump is even considering going after people who did not commit crimes.
Exactly! If Trump had not said that he was going to go after his opponents ("the enemy within"), then Biden wouldn't have had a need to pardon his son. Trump thinks the J6 committe should go to jail. They didn't commit any crimes. He wants to silence anyone who disagrees with him. Can you say "authoritarianism?" Trump has also said he will pardon the J6 insurrectionists - people who actually committed crimes that we all saw on TV, where people were killed. It seems the democratic party is held to a much higher standard when it comes to following rules and making promises than the republican party. Why?
I want to know, too - I have never understood what crimes they committed. To me, it just looks like retaliation. In his interview on Meet the Press yesterday, President-elect Trump said that all of the members of the J6 committee should go to jail. I would appreciate someone enlightening me on why they should go to jail.
For the January 6th committee members, I couldn't find anything pointing to specific claims of criminal activities, and it mostly seems to be Trump who is pushing for them to be jailed. If we look to parallels in other countries that have slid toward authoritarianism, there is always the risk that Trump's DOJ could "coincidentally find" evidence of other crimes for each member and would then prosecute them for those activities. I don't know if we're there yet. I pray we are not.
For Dr. Fauci, there seems to be an effort to charge him with causing the COVID-19 outbreak, claiming that because the NIH/NIAID under Dr. Fauci funded 'gain of function' research at the same lab in Wuhan from which the virus is alleged to have been leaked, then he would be responsible for "crimes against humanity": https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4706462-gop-fauci-crosshairs-criminality/
Doing their jobs. Fauci for not being psychic and advocating for shut downs. Cheney for going against her party and being on the Jan 6 committee and agreeing Trump was guilty for Jan 6. The fear is that Trump and his lackeys will create evidence to make these people guilty for just doing their jobs.
I think the pardoning was interesting. I would have been ok with it had he framed it as a “father protecting his son” but I didn’t love when he added the weaponization of the courts. It’s going to make future pardons more palatable for those who see other things as weaponization of the courts, which is a tough road the lead at this point in time.
At first I thought pardoning Liz Cheney and Anthony Fauci was a great idea, then they would be protected from Trump’s revenge. Steve Schmidt from the Warning suggests that if Fauci and Cheney accept the pardon, they are admitting to doing something wrong - they did nothing wrong, except try to protect our country from an unknown virus and a possible insurrection! (I agree.)
Re: pardoning Hunter Biden, addiction is a terrible disease, yes he made bad mistakes - broke the law, etc. As an OB nurse I witnessed a mother leave her 2 year old in a hotel room alone so she could call and meet up with her dealer, she was 9 months pregnant and her water broke while making her call. She confessed to leaving her daughter in the hotel room alone when she came into the hospital to delivery her baby. What other kind is disease, illness would cause a woman to make such an awful choice? Joe Biden is a father, the Republican Party was/is out to kill his last son. It truly is sickening. Yes he lied, Bill Clinton lied denying his affair with Monica Luwenski. Politicians lie - I don’t agree but they do. Trump does it a lot and he was still elected to be our next president.
Jo Biden saved his son, who has a terrible disease and had been sober for 5 years. Emotions won that battle. We need to all look in our hearts and ask, if it was our child, would we have done anything different?
My oldest son suffered from addiction. It was awful! I am pleased to say he’s been sober for almost 9 years. So very thankful. 🙏
“And of course, there’s the elephant in the room: Biden had already promised, repeatedly, not to pardon his son. Conservative news outlets have had a field day with that fact that Biden pledged to do one thing, and has now changed his mind and is doing another.”
I appreciate the history of pardons but think you use an interesting choice of words of ‘field day’ and ‘conservative news outlets’. Many outlets are calling BS on the lies that Biden and the administration repeatedly told. Biden has set a poor precedent and confirmed many people’s distrust of these institutions.
No one can blame a man for protecting his family, but it’s the repeated lies from a party who claims to be morally superior that I find hypocritical.
But let’s talk about the other elephant in the room called RETALIATION. Why should President Biden fear for his son? The next administration has said they will be going after Hunter Biden. It seems that Trumps reign is all about hurting and damaging and taking. Liz Cheney for speaking the truth? Fauci for legitimately trying to keep US alive?
Would you feel the same if this were Trump? I agree that we can change our mind based on new information but wondering if you give/would give the same grace to Trump.
A "lie" implies that Biden knew all along that he was going to pardon Hunter and that he chose to be dishonest every time that he was asked, and I don't know if we could ever know that for sure to be the case. Logically, it's far more likely that his opinion changed as the situation changed.
To draw one parallel with Trump, he ran for his first term on building a border wall with Mexico (that Mexico would pay for). It was a statement he made repeatedly, but upon entering office and realizing that it was not so simple as that, he ultimately changed his mind on building the complete border wall. IMO that's a similar situation to Biden's, and I do not believe that Trump "lied" about the border wall: I believe he sincerely thought he could make it happen, but then he couldn't so he changed his mind.
If Harris had won, Biden would not have pardoned his son. He stated repeatedly that he wouldn't pardon his son because he believed that he or Harris would win the election. Then she lost and that ushered in some very real fear for what Trump had planned and promised to do to Hunter once he took office. It changed everything.
Good question. Ideally I would hope that democrats would not chase retaliation.
Here is what I know… without some of these key people being pardon a big part of Trump’s time will be full of court hearings … I would rather see Trump do the real work of a presidency.
I completely disagree with you. I don’t think Biden would have pardoned his son if Donald Trump hadn’t stated repeatedly that he is going to go after his opponents, everyone who spoke out negatively about him, filed charges against him, or said or did something he disagreed with. His constant comments on retribution must be a concern of everyone who hasn’t supported him. Biden didn’t blatant lie, he changed his mind based on the circumstances and I am glad he did. Donald Trump has shown his true colors and Biden decided that his son shouldn’t be continually punished because someone has promised retribution.
I agree with this. I think he was being sincere when he said that he wasn’t going to pardon his son. And then, it seems as though Trump and the far right have no issue with doing extreme things and doing illegal things, so why not protect those he fears will pay the price for their need for retribution. And also, when one side does not seem to play by the rules, why is the other side upheld to a different standard. I am not saying that they’re doing it, so why can’t we, but what I am saying is that, if one side seems to do things that are irrational and cause pain for others, then why wouldn’t the other do what’s needed to prepare for that.
I understand what you’re saying, Amy. Like my comment notes above, we need to ask ourselves why Biden may have felt he needed to protect his son from the next administration. To me, this is the elephant in the room that the media isn’t talking about (unless I’ve missed it). I’m not saying the pardon was right or wrong. It’s also discouraging that Biden is accused of lying when he changed his mind based upon new facts. It’s entirely concerning that a sitting POTUS doesn’t have confidence in the US justice system - another thing that the media isn’t reporting.
"It’s entirely concerning that a sitting POTUS doesn’t have confidence in the US justice system - another thing that the media isn’t reporting."
I hadn't looked at it like this and you're exactly right. Whether his lack of confidence is misplaced or justified, either way, this is his opinion as a sitting POTUS.
It certainly is telling that Biden allowed the investigation into his son to continue under his own DOJ, especially if you believe his statement that he never found it entirely fair, but also that he chose only to step in now that Trump is closer to taking office and talking about his own plans for the FBI and DOJ.
It is telling! He allowed the investigation even though he believed Hunter was being unfairly prosecuted, that politics influenced the prosecution and that Hunter was prosecuted because he was Joe Biden's son. My personal opinion is that he planned to pardon him all along, and he was mis-counseled these past several months into saying he wouldn't.
That certainly could be the case, though it’s just as likely (and evidenced during his attempt at reelection) that Biden sincerely believed that either he or Kamala Harris would be President next term, and there wouldn’t be concerns about the current investigation expanding any further beyond its current scope or fear that Hunter would be targeted with even more charges. We’ll never know for sure.
1- Because he is his only living son and the nature of the crimes weren't violent.
2- Because the prosecution was politically motivated. I've held that opinion from the get-go, and it's clear Biden believes that as well based on his statement.
3- Because pardoning Hunter would have no negative consequences if he had been re-elected, and no personal consequences if Harris were elected.
I love this reaction, not that I agree with everything, but that it is well reasoned and is argued in good faith, in a way I hadn't thought of before. Thank you, Amy!
I didn't see anyone directly grapple with your main point here, that you feel like Sharon has mischaracterized the media reaction to the pardon story. I think you and Sharon are both correct.
You can read Sharon's piece literally, and the takeaway would be that the most conservative media outlets are having fun with the story, milking it for political points. Looking at those most conservative outlets, I do not see anything incorrect there. Republican pundits are indeed gleeful about an opportunity to call Biden a hypocrite after their side is constantly being labeled hypocritical.
Or you can read between the lines and think that Sharon put that sentence in there to characterize the media reaction at large to be only the most conservative outlets that are overreacting, and the other outlets are ignoring it. I think that's a totally fair reading and worth calling out as misleading. Your examples effectively prove your point.
I think the intention was the former interpretation, not the latter. I think that sentence was meant to explain the pardon situation as a political shot in the foot for Democrats. But the effect of reading that sentence probably had some unintended meaning for many readers.
I think you are commenting in good faith but from the lenses of privilege. There are many people that due to circumstances read things or reacts at face value.
Hi Beth, I am not sure what you mean. You are replying to my comment, right? I agree with your second sentence, but I am not sure how it supports the first sentence.
Amy, I was also disappointed that Biden said one thing, and did another. I also felt the same way when he said he wasn’t going to drop out of the presidential race, and then he did. I agree, it felt like losing the moral high ground.
However, I cannot deny there are external circumstances: the incoming administrations’ promises of retribution against Hunter and others, and whatever pressure Biden experienced from his own party leading up to his discontinuing his campaign.
While it is true circumstances out of his control change, it is jarring when you think you know and can depend on his stands, and then he changes them.
I really appreciated his short, one-word answers when he was asked if he would pardon/continue running. It was so refreshing. Now it just feels disillusioning.
I noticed the focus on conservatives having a field day, without acknowledging that liberals also criticized the pardon. Personally, I don't have an issue with him pardoning his son—I believe it was his intent from the start. As a parent, I would have likely done the same. However, the way he handled his earlier statements and the eventual pardon lacked consistency.
He could have avoided a definitive "no" response when asked about this earlier, opting for "no comment" or another statement that didn't lock him into a firm position. Instead, he repeatedly denied he would pardon Hunter, only to then lead the announcement with this statement (which notably has no connection to Trump):
"Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department's decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. 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."
I agree with the sentiment that Hunter's prosecution was politically motivated, much like Trump's case in New York, which doesn’t negate the fact that wrongdoing may have occurred. Prosecutors make choices about which cases to pursue and how to handle them, and political considerations often play a role.
In hindsight, Biden might have been better off acknowledging the likelihood of a pardon from the outset, saying something like, "Yes, he’s my only living son, and I will do what I believe is right as a parent." That would have aligned with his apparent belief in the unfairness of the situation from the beginning.
As for those claiming Biden only did this because of Trump (or Republicans)? That argument doesn’t hold water for me. His actions seem more rooted in personal conviction than in reaction to Trump.
I disagree with your last sentence. Biden is an institutionalist. He strongly believes in democracy and the institutions that support it. However, he also has seen who Trump has chosen to lead departments like Justice and the FBI. These people have made many statements indicating that they are willing to use their positions to go after Trump's enemies, to get retribution. (This, not their resume, is why they were chosen) .I also believe that the MAGA base wants these prosecutions. In light of these circumstances, Biden is willing to offer pardons to individuals who WILL be targeted. A decision that, I am certain, he struggles with, that go against his core values.
Two things can be true: Biden is an institutionalist, and Biden thought his son was unfairly singled out for prosecution for political reasons. His pardon statement said this:
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. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.
So if the truth was really that Biden wanted to offer pardons to individuals who could be targeted when he leaves office, he could (and should) have said so. But he didn't. I still stand by my last sentence.
Perhaps the pardon was even deeper than has been mentioned by Sharon and in the replies. What if the pardon was motivated by Biden not wanting any future investigations to uncover all involvement of possible wrongdoings of the entire Biden family. “Oh what a tangled web we weave…”
Beyond the allegations against Hunter (which do go beyond the criminal investigations/prosecutions currently levied against him), for Sharon to suggest that "the entire Biden family" might have something to hide would be wild speculation: the House Oversight Committee, already a highly partisan group, has been investigating the Biden family since January 2023 and they have yet to uncover any evidence to support criminal charges against President Biden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Oversight_Committee_investigation_into_the_Biden_family#Presentation_of_interim_findings)
“The entire Biden family” was probably aggressive on my part, however according to the link below there appears to be more Biden family members, in addition to Hunter, involved in various nefarious dealings.
That's fair! As Tammy pointed out, this pardon does not preclude investigation into any other members of the Biden family, so should actionable evidence be uncovered the Committee would still be free to refer those individuals to the DOJ for charges.
Given the breadth of the pardon's language (below) and that the Supreme Court has held that accepting a pardon is legally admitting they are guilty, at a minimum it appears that Hunter may have committed additional crimes. This pardon doesn't, though, protect anyone else in the family, so it's possible if the DOJ thinks federal crimes have been committed by others in or adjacent to the Biden family, they could decide to pursue those. Time will tell.
A Full and Unconditional Pardon
For those 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, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Thanks, Sharon. I think we need to be talking more about the immense concern that Trump is even considering going after people who did not commit crimes.
Exactly! If Trump had not said that he was going to go after his opponents ("the enemy within"), then Biden wouldn't have had a need to pardon his son. Trump thinks the J6 committe should go to jail. They didn't commit any crimes. He wants to silence anyone who disagrees with him. Can you say "authoritarianism?" Trump has also said he will pardon the J6 insurrectionists - people who actually committed crimes that we all saw on TV, where people were killed. It seems the democratic party is held to a much higher standard when it comes to following rules and making promises than the republican party. Why?
What crimes did Fauci and Cheney commit?
I want to know, too - I have never understood what crimes they committed. To me, it just looks like retaliation. In his interview on Meet the Press yesterday, President-elect Trump said that all of the members of the J6 committee should go to jail. I would appreciate someone enlightening me on why they should go to jail.
And Kristen Welker should have come back at Trump to say, they committed no crime!
For the January 6th committee members, I couldn't find anything pointing to specific claims of criminal activities, and it mostly seems to be Trump who is pushing for them to be jailed. If we look to parallels in other countries that have slid toward authoritarianism, there is always the risk that Trump's DOJ could "coincidentally find" evidence of other crimes for each member and would then prosecute them for those activities. I don't know if we're there yet. I pray we are not.
For Dr. Fauci, there seems to be an effort to charge him with causing the COVID-19 outbreak, claiming that because the NIH/NIAID under Dr. Fauci funded 'gain of function' research at the same lab in Wuhan from which the virus is alleged to have been leaked, then he would be responsible for "crimes against humanity": https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4706462-gop-fauci-crosshairs-criminality/
It would be a wild reach: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/
Doing their jobs. Fauci for not being psychic and advocating for shut downs. Cheney for going against her party and being on the Jan 6 committee and agreeing Trump was guilty for Jan 6. The fear is that Trump and his lackeys will create evidence to make these people guilty for just doing their jobs.
I was wondering the same thing. Of what crimes would they guilty?
I am curious about this too. I have my own opinions of both of them, but I am not clear on the crimes committed.
I think the pardoning was interesting. I would have been ok with it had he framed it as a “father protecting his son” but I didn’t love when he added the weaponization of the courts. It’s going to make future pardons more palatable for those who see other things as weaponization of the courts, which is a tough road the lead at this point in time.
At first I thought pardoning Liz Cheney and Anthony Fauci was a great idea, then they would be protected from Trump’s revenge. Steve Schmidt from the Warning suggests that if Fauci and Cheney accept the pardon, they are admitting to doing something wrong - they did nothing wrong, except try to protect our country from an unknown virus and a possible insurrection! (I agree.)
Re: pardoning Hunter Biden, addiction is a terrible disease, yes he made bad mistakes - broke the law, etc. As an OB nurse I witnessed a mother leave her 2 year old in a hotel room alone so she could call and meet up with her dealer, she was 9 months pregnant and her water broke while making her call. She confessed to leaving her daughter in the hotel room alone when she came into the hospital to delivery her baby. What other kind is disease, illness would cause a woman to make such an awful choice? Joe Biden is a father, the Republican Party was/is out to kill his last son. It truly is sickening. Yes he lied, Bill Clinton lied denying his affair with Monica Luwenski. Politicians lie - I don’t agree but they do. Trump does it a lot and he was still elected to be our next president.
Jo Biden saved his son, who has a terrible disease and had been sober for 5 years. Emotions won that battle. We need to all look in our hearts and ask, if it was our child, would we have done anything different?
My oldest son suffered from addiction. It was awful! I am pleased to say he’s been sober for almost 9 years. So very thankful. 🙏
“And of course, there’s the elephant in the room: Biden had already promised, repeatedly, not to pardon his son. Conservative news outlets have had a field day with that fact that Biden pledged to do one thing, and has now changed his mind and is doing another.”
I appreciate the history of pardons but think you use an interesting choice of words of ‘field day’ and ‘conservative news outlets’. Many outlets are calling BS on the lies that Biden and the administration repeatedly told. Biden has set a poor precedent and confirmed many people’s distrust of these institutions.
No one can blame a man for protecting his family, but it’s the repeated lies from a party who claims to be morally superior that I find hypocritical.
Links for the people who may or may not ask.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/02/politics/biden-allies-disappointed-pardon
https://apnews.com/article/biden-hunter-biden-pardon-son-9307d6bade834df77c265cae7d3b7c25
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-broke-a-promise-pardoning-his-son-hunter-raising-questions-about-his-legacy
But let’s talk about the other elephant in the room called RETALIATION. Why should President Biden fear for his son? The next administration has said they will be going after Hunter Biden. It seems that Trumps reign is all about hurting and damaging and taking. Liz Cheney for speaking the truth? Fauci for legitimately trying to keep US alive?
Over it.
I don’t fault Biden for doing what he had to do for his son, which I stated. It’s the lies that he repeatedly told.
But were they lies ? Can we not change how we feel due to new information? IDK… in my adult life I am always listening, learning and giving grace.
Would you feel the same if this were Trump? I agree that we can change our mind based on new information but wondering if you give/would give the same grace to Trump.
A "lie" implies that Biden knew all along that he was going to pardon Hunter and that he chose to be dishonest every time that he was asked, and I don't know if we could ever know that for sure to be the case. Logically, it's far more likely that his opinion changed as the situation changed.
To draw one parallel with Trump, he ran for his first term on building a border wall with Mexico (that Mexico would pay for). It was a statement he made repeatedly, but upon entering office and realizing that it was not so simple as that, he ultimately changed his mind on building the complete border wall. IMO that's a similar situation to Biden's, and I do not believe that Trump "lied" about the border wall: I believe he sincerely thought he could make it happen, but then he couldn't so he changed his mind.
If Harris had won, Biden would not have pardoned his son. He stated repeatedly that he wouldn't pardon his son because he believed that he or Harris would win the election. Then she lost and that ushered in some very real fear for what Trump had planned and promised to do to Hunter once he took office. It changed everything.
I absolutely agree with you, Lisa!
Yes yes yes
Good question. Ideally I would hope that democrats would not chase retaliation.
Here is what I know… without some of these key people being pardon a big part of Trump’s time will be full of court hearings … I would rather see Trump do the real work of a presidency.
I agree
I completely disagree with you. I don’t think Biden would have pardoned his son if Donald Trump hadn’t stated repeatedly that he is going to go after his opponents, everyone who spoke out negatively about him, filed charges against him, or said or did something he disagreed with. His constant comments on retribution must be a concern of everyone who hasn’t supported him. Biden didn’t blatant lie, he changed his mind based on the circumstances and I am glad he did. Donald Trump has shown his true colors and Biden decided that his son shouldn’t be continually punished because someone has promised retribution.
I agree with this. I think he was being sincere when he said that he wasn’t going to pardon his son. And then, it seems as though Trump and the far right have no issue with doing extreme things and doing illegal things, so why not protect those he fears will pay the price for their need for retribution. And also, when one side does not seem to play by the rules, why is the other side upheld to a different standard. I am not saying that they’re doing it, so why can’t we, but what I am saying is that, if one side seems to do things that are irrational and cause pain for others, then why wouldn’t the other do what’s needed to prepare for that.
I understand what you’re saying, Amy. Like my comment notes above, we need to ask ourselves why Biden may have felt he needed to protect his son from the next administration. To me, this is the elephant in the room that the media isn’t talking about (unless I’ve missed it). I’m not saying the pardon was right or wrong. It’s also discouraging that Biden is accused of lying when he changed his mind based upon new facts. It’s entirely concerning that a sitting POTUS doesn’t have confidence in the US justice system - another thing that the media isn’t reporting.
"It’s entirely concerning that a sitting POTUS doesn’t have confidence in the US justice system - another thing that the media isn’t reporting."
I hadn't looked at it like this and you're exactly right. Whether his lack of confidence is misplaced or justified, either way, this is his opinion as a sitting POTUS.
It certainly is telling that Biden allowed the investigation into his son to continue under his own DOJ, especially if you believe his statement that he never found it entirely fair, but also that he chose only to step in now that Trump is closer to taking office and talking about his own plans for the FBI and DOJ.
It is telling! He allowed the investigation even though he believed Hunter was being unfairly prosecuted, that politics influenced the prosecution and that Hunter was prosecuted because he was Joe Biden's son. My personal opinion is that he planned to pardon him all along, and he was mis-counseled these past several months into saying he wouldn't.
That certainly could be the case, though it’s just as likely (and evidenced during his attempt at reelection) that Biden sincerely believed that either he or Kamala Harris would be President next term, and there wouldn’t be concerns about the current investigation expanding any further beyond its current scope or fear that Hunter would be targeted with even more charges. We’ll never know for sure.
Tammy, can I ask why you think Biden planned to pardon Hunter all along?
A few reasons:
1- Because he is his only living son and the nature of the crimes weren't violent.
2- Because the prosecution was politically motivated. I've held that opinion from the get-go, and it's clear Biden believes that as well based on his statement.
3- Because pardoning Hunter would have no negative consequences if he had been re-elected, and no personal consequences if Harris were elected.
Good points, Jessica.
I love this reaction, not that I agree with everything, but that it is well reasoned and is argued in good faith, in a way I hadn't thought of before. Thank you, Amy!
I didn't see anyone directly grapple with your main point here, that you feel like Sharon has mischaracterized the media reaction to the pardon story. I think you and Sharon are both correct.
You can read Sharon's piece literally, and the takeaway would be that the most conservative media outlets are having fun with the story, milking it for political points. Looking at those most conservative outlets, I do not see anything incorrect there. Republican pundits are indeed gleeful about an opportunity to call Biden a hypocrite after their side is constantly being labeled hypocritical.
Or you can read between the lines and think that Sharon put that sentence in there to characterize the media reaction at large to be only the most conservative outlets that are overreacting, and the other outlets are ignoring it. I think that's a totally fair reading and worth calling out as misleading. Your examples effectively prove your point.
I think the intention was the former interpretation, not the latter. I think that sentence was meant to explain the pardon situation as a political shot in the foot for Democrats. But the effect of reading that sentence probably had some unintended meaning for many readers.
Good points, Timothy. I can see your point and thoughtful analysis.
I think you are commenting in good faith but from the lenses of privilege. There are many people that due to circumstances read things or reacts at face value.
Hi Beth, I am not sure what you mean. You are replying to my comment, right? I agree with your second sentence, but I am not sure how it supports the first sentence.
Amy, I was also disappointed that Biden said one thing, and did another. I also felt the same way when he said he wasn’t going to drop out of the presidential race, and then he did. I agree, it felt like losing the moral high ground.
However, I cannot deny there are external circumstances: the incoming administrations’ promises of retribution against Hunter and others, and whatever pressure Biden experienced from his own party leading up to his discontinuing his campaign.
While it is true circumstances out of his control change, it is jarring when you think you know and can depend on his stands, and then he changes them.
I really appreciated his short, one-word answers when he was asked if he would pardon/continue running. It was so refreshing. Now it just feels disillusioning.
While my brain understands, my heart hurts.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Gina.
And yours, also, Amy.
I noticed the focus on conservatives having a field day, without acknowledging that liberals also criticized the pardon. Personally, I don't have an issue with him pardoning his son—I believe it was his intent from the start. As a parent, I would have likely done the same. However, the way he handled his earlier statements and the eventual pardon lacked consistency.
He could have avoided a definitive "no" response when asked about this earlier, opting for "no comment" or another statement that didn't lock him into a firm position. Instead, he repeatedly denied he would pardon Hunter, only to then lead the announcement with this statement (which notably has no connection to Trump):
"Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department's decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. 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."
I agree with the sentiment that Hunter's prosecution was politically motivated, much like Trump's case in New York, which doesn’t negate the fact that wrongdoing may have occurred. Prosecutors make choices about which cases to pursue and how to handle them, and political considerations often play a role.
In hindsight, Biden might have been better off acknowledging the likelihood of a pardon from the outset, saying something like, "Yes, he’s my only living son, and I will do what I believe is right as a parent." That would have aligned with his apparent belief in the unfairness of the situation from the beginning.
As for those claiming Biden only did this because of Trump (or Republicans)? That argument doesn’t hold water for me. His actions seem more rooted in personal conviction than in reaction to Trump.
I disagree with your last sentence. Biden is an institutionalist. He strongly believes in democracy and the institutions that support it. However, he also has seen who Trump has chosen to lead departments like Justice and the FBI. These people have made many statements indicating that they are willing to use their positions to go after Trump's enemies, to get retribution. (This, not their resume, is why they were chosen) .I also believe that the MAGA base wants these prosecutions. In light of these circumstances, Biden is willing to offer pardons to individuals who WILL be targeted. A decision that, I am certain, he struggles with, that go against his core values.
Two things can be true: Biden is an institutionalist, and Biden thought his son was unfairly singled out for prosecution for political reasons. His pardon statement said this:
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. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.
So if the truth was really that Biden wanted to offer pardons to individuals who could be targeted when he leaves office, he could (and should) have said so. But he didn't. I still stand by my last sentence.
Tammy, I am non-partisan, and I also find fault with Biden changing his stance. I do not fault the pardon, but it feels like he broke his word.
I agree, Tammy. Very well said. I am struggling to find evidence he did this as a response to Trump.
The President's deliberations are private but there has been a lot of discussion about exactly why Trump has the White House and counsel concerned: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/04/biden-white-house-pardons-00192610
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5023346-democratic-rep-pushes-biden-to-issue-blanket-pardon-to-those-patel-could-target/ (not Biden specifically, but Democratic lawmakers who have been pushing for pardons in response to Patel's appointment)
Emily, this may be a good time to remind everyone that we also have a part to play. We can influence whether nominations are confirmed, etc.
Governerds, assemble!
Very few Republicans are willing to stand up to Trump. They are too afraid of a primary challenge.
It’s up to us to demand, “principle over party!”
Thankfully, because the GOP majority is extremely slim, there only needs to be a few who dissent.
Thanks Emily. I will look at these this afternoon in more detail.
Perhaps the pardon was even deeper than has been mentioned by Sharon and in the replies. What if the pardon was motivated by Biden not wanting any future investigations to uncover all involvement of possible wrongdoings of the entire Biden family. “Oh what a tangled web we weave…”
Beyond the allegations against Hunter (which do go beyond the criminal investigations/prosecutions currently levied against him), for Sharon to suggest that "the entire Biden family" might have something to hide would be wild speculation: the House Oversight Committee, already a highly partisan group, has been investigating the Biden family since January 2023 and they have yet to uncover any evidence to support criminal charges against President Biden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Oversight_Committee_investigation_into_the_Biden_family#Presentation_of_interim_findings)
“The entire Biden family” was probably aggressive on my part, however according to the link below there appears to be more Biden family members, in addition to Hunter, involved in various nefarious dealings.
https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/
That's fair! As Tammy pointed out, this pardon does not preclude investigation into any other members of the Biden family, so should actionable evidence be uncovered the Committee would still be free to refer those individuals to the DOJ for charges.
Given the breadth of the pardon's language (below) and that the Supreme Court has held that accepting a pardon is legally admitting they are guilty, at a minimum it appears that Hunter may have committed additional crimes. This pardon doesn't, though, protect anyone else in the family, so it's possible if the DOJ thinks federal crimes have been committed by others in or adjacent to the Biden family, they could decide to pursue those. Time will tell.
A Full and Unconditional Pardon
For those 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, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
I thought of that too.
Exactly Amy.
My only surprise is that Biden said he wouldn’t pardon Hunter. As president, it’s his right to pardon whoever the heck he wants and I’m glad he did!
I think I read this entire story somewhere else, maybe on another Substack? Any original thoughts here?