Joe Biden is being faulted for pardoning his son, 54-year-old Hunter, after having repeatedly saying that he wouldn’t, that he would let the judicial system run its course, uninvolved. Hunter Biden has pleaded guilty to tax evasion, and was found guilty of owning a gun while under the influence of drugs, in the grip of a well-known addiction.
As to Joe Biden changing his mind, we accept that. Evolving events can invalidate a previous promise. In this case, these events have to do with what the incoming administration, notably President-elect Donald Trump and FBI Director nominee Kash Patel. Both men are described as “being obsessed with Hunter Biden,” as they were during Trump’s first term. Others are, too. James Comer, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas have spent years alleging and investigating crimes only to come up with none. Patel has insisted that the Department of Justice focus on Hunter Biden as soon as Trump and his FBI director is in charge.
It’s no wonder father Joe changed his mind.
It’s the no-punishment result that we have trouble with. Hunter Biden capitalized on his father’s position to enrich himself, most notably to be paid significant board fees for membership on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. Another attempted dealmaking on Hunter’s part by telephone included having his father in the room, and then a sketchy high dollar art sales project that promised to keep purchasers’ names secret. It flopped.
We would have urged nuance applied to Hunter’s pardon. Pardon him for the gun charge, which was an unusual application of the law. Charging someone with firearms possession by someone addicted to illegal drugs is not usually brought by prosecutors and thought only to have been because he was the president’s son.
Hunter Biden had the weapon for 11 days and lied about not being a drug addict, when he was, and fearful that he was considering suicide, his sister-in-law tossed it into the trash. That was not someone who was planning to use the weapon against someone else while in the throes of addiction.
As to not paying taxes, that is clear cut. While much is being made of the fact that in most cases tax evaders, particularly those who eventually pay what was due, with interest, as Hunter Biden did, aren’t incarcerated, and we will never know what the sentencing might have been.
It would have been better for both Joe and Hunter Biden to have addressed the press, saying that, as a part of the broad pardon, Hunter would serve one year in prison. That would begin Hunter Biden’s payment to society, his apology and the change in frame of mind that he has pledged he will adopt.
A pardon that includes a year in prison. If satisfying a majority of Americans is also a goal, would that have done it?
Whether presidential pardons – and governors’ pardons – should exist makes for a good debate, and the answer perhaps should be “no.” Designed with arms-length screening, exceptions based on personal factors are too often included, and can be viewed negatively.
The decision Joe Biden made to protect his son adds to the claim made by the right that the judicial system can be tilted heavily in favor of those in power. That’s unfortunate, as the incoming president has previously and is once again making his influence over the judiciary a centerpiece.
