President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter despite the White House saying over and over he would not do it.
The pardon includes charges Hunter faced or might have faced from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.
Yes, ten years. Absolute insanity. That means anything else that pops up in that time period doesn’t count. Hunter cannot face any charges.
Hunter Biden committed — & was convicted of — felony tax evasion crimes & felony gun crimes. Those convictions are now gone. But… Joe has also pardoned Hunter for *all* other crimes which he may have committed from 2014 to today. So foreign lobbying etc. can’t be prosecuted now. https://t.co/GnKtq3rmeB
— Jerry Dunleavy IV 🇺🇸 (@JerryDunleavy) December 2, 2024
Hunter pleaded guilty to tax evasion. He was going to face sentencing on December 16 for lying on a federal form by saying he was not using drugs or addicted to drugs when trying to buy a gun.
Biden wrote in a press release:
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. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.
The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.
“I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision,” Biden concluded.
Remember this one?
No one is above the law.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 31, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Of course he did. No downside to it, politically, especially after Trump won.
You, me, we all expected this, right? Joe’s been corrupt his whole miserable life. To think that he might force his son to man up and step up and face the consequences of his own behavior is simply not within Joe’s nasty nature.
We all expected it, but take particular note of the NeverTrumpers that ASSURED us that he totally wouldn’t because he ‘respected the rule of law’.
That never happened. Name one “never-trumper” who made such a claim.
Said the Never Trumper
You did.
Maxmillion wrote:
Bill Kristol.
So “if you’re inclined toward American constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and a free economic order,” you’ll vote for Biden.
Bill Kristol said Biden wouldn’t pardon Hunter?! I don’t believe you. Prove it.
This pardon effectively serves as a safeguard for Joe Biden himself.
If you examine the details, the pardon dates back to 2014 and extends to 2024, covering crimes both committed and uncommitted during this ten year period.
This broad scope essentially eliminates any potential RICO case against the Bidens, particularly Joe.
In essence, this pardon was strategically crafted to shield Joe Biden from legal accountability, encompassing all actions that may have benefited him directly.
Agree that was the goal but there is still a chance that another Biden like brother James could be investigated and prosecuted who might spill the beans on the whole bunch. Unlikely, but possible.
No, it doesn’t. It just means Hunter can’t be charged in any such case. Joe and Jim are still fair game (unless he issues another pardon by Jan-20.)
Sorry, Milhouse, but Joel Pollack over at Breitbart disagrees with your assertion.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/12/01/hunter-pardon-lets-joe-biden-cover-up-his-own-alleged-influence-peddling-crimes/
Too bad Hunter can’t pardon Joe.
Joe can pardon Joe.
BS.
This whole idea of pardoning oneself is crazy.
Given the precedent the Dims set going after Trump, I expect it will become common.
Crazy or not, the power is plenary, so there’s nothing preventing him from doing it.
The only reason he wouldn’t do it is confidence that he’ll never be charged.
I’m strzoked beyond belief.
This is why Hunter stopped fighting anything before the election. An attempt to eliminate the distraction of his 1st Lieutenant of Extortion and Kickbacks in exchange for a pardon after the election.
I’m not surprised because Biden said he was going to pardon a turkey.
Take a very amused thumbs up, sir.
It’s very curious that Joe blames Congress for Hunter’s problems. Who has been in charge of the DOJ for nearly 4 years? As a fellow traveler, Garland didn’t need orders from Joe to understand what path to take. It seems reasonable that Hunter’s prosecutions served a purpose, possibly a dual purpose – control Hunter so that he didn’t become a loose cannon threat to the Joe and the Biden crime family, and to craft a narrative/counter-narrative that the DOJ’s law enforcement efforts were apolitical – “See, we’ve charged the president’s son with crimes. How dare you call us ‘politicized’?”
Good. Now we can proceed to put the finishing touches on the story being written about the most corrupt, traitorist, incompetent Pesidential family in US history. Vile people all of them.
If only this were true. But it isn’t.
This reminds me of how the Dems defended Clinton by claiming that no one is ever prosecuted for mere perjury, about their sexual activity, in a civil action. Except that the NYT dug up eight people who were at that very moment in federal prison for doing precisely that. Simple perjury, about sex, in a civil action. If Clinton had had a shred of self-respect he would immediately have pardoned all eight, and instructed DOJ never again to bring such charges. Then he could claim the same treatment for himself. But he didn’t; he just ignored it, kept those people in prison, and kept on demanding better treatment for himself, and the whole Dem party backed him on it, and successfully made the issue about the sex rather than the perjury.
Clinton had a focus group say he would be negatively polled by the sex…. So he lied…which turned out to be not an issue.
Yet
Jan 6 er’s rot in jail
It’s good to be king
If a person has to be of sound mind in order for a will to be valid, wouldn’t a president have to be of sound mind to issue a pardon?
Nope. There’s nothing in the constitution about the president’s soundness of mind.
Well there is the 25th Amendment but it does have to be invoked first.
Which is another reason no one should have voted for Kamala. Grotesque failure to do her duty to the country and invoke the 25th on Joe.
There is no duty to invoke it. It’s merely an option.
There’s a thing in the whole body of contract law and the concept of volition in actions that addresses “soundness of mind”. There cannot be any legal order of any sort from someone who is not sound of mind. This is a friggin tautology.
And once again you are completely wrong. There is no connection whatsoever between contract law and any of the president’s constitutional powers.
Any order must be SIGNED by someone. A signature is only good for someone who is sound of mind, otherwise the signature is invalid.
This ain’t tough stuff. Even you should be able to follow along without having to have every single little thing explained to you explicitly.
Sheesh …. it’s like talking to a two year old.
There is no requirement that an order be signed. You won’t find that anywhere in the constitution.
You’re also wrong about a signature requiring a sound mind. Legislation requires the president’s signature, but a bill signed by a president who is not of sound mind is still valid law.
LOL.
Yes … you won’t find it anywhere in the Constitution … BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS SIGNED!!! which means, to any normal person, that the concept of signatures on orders and contracts and the like was WELL KNOWN to those … WHO SIGNED THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION!!
Holy sh*t …
Is there even a precedent for blanket pardons for any thing one may have done bad for a given period? That sounds like an enormous stretch.
Aha. Saw your other post.
States should be pursuing the thousands of charges they could easily level at Hunter. And there are so many other federal crimes that Hunter has committed.
Further, this idea that people can be “pardoned” without having been convicted is CRAZY and completely ridiculous. THe pardon power is not one to just be able to take any person outside of the law’s possible reach for anything at all. A pardon is merely the removal of an actual conviction. Without a conviction there can be no pardon.
I find it amazing that people have accepted this farce of pardoning people out of the blue, with the “pardon” being nothing but declaring the person to be “off limits” to the law. It is a mockery.
Oops.
I forgot that he had already pled guilty to the tax evasion charges.
Well, it’s not completely ridiculous, because as we’ve seen in multiple cases (Flynn the most obvious, but the J6ers too), the Deep State is FULLY WILLING to drag things out for years to try and bankrupt their targets without ever actually setting foot in the courtroom.
Particularly if the defendant is already sitting in jail like the J6 crew.
But, as President Trump can put an end to any ongoing harassment by the DOJ and other Executive agencies. He doesn’t need any pardon power to do that.
Now, that doesn’t guarantee that a different administration won’t try to bring up the same charges later (and in this the pardon would stop it) but I don’t think that that is the purpose or function of the pardon power. It is not a power to declare some individual off-limits, just by whim of the President. It is not the power to declare some law inoperable (pardoning everyone who broke that law, say). It is a power that is specific and individual and should relate to a finding of the judiciary or an abuse of the judiciary against someone (in which case those responsible for that abuse need to be pursued).
Of course, all the J6 people who didn’t break in should be freed (and those who did commit crimes but were given ridiculous sentences should have them commuted). This would be pardons for those unlawfully convicted and imprisoned and having the DOJ drop all pursuit of people who are still awaiting trials, with the DOJ setting out to investigate and charge those behind these criminal abuses of the legal system and governmental Executive power.
As usual, you are completely wrong. ~250 years of US history says you’re wrong. None of those involved in drafting and ratifying the constitution agreed with you. It has never been the case, and has never even been suggested, that a charge is necessary for a pardon, let alone a conviction. Blanket pardons (such as Trump should issue for most of those involved in the events of Jan-6-2021) are completely within our tradition; Washington himself issued one.
As if YOU have never been wrong.
I am sometimes wrong. Primordial is almost always wrong.
From the United States Government’s own Justice web site: (I emboldened the relevant part for you)
So, what you imply is normal and has been part of American governance for 250 years, the US’ own justice web site says is “UNUSUAL” and cites the first instance only in the 1970s. Interestingly, just about the same time that the SCOTUS had decided Roe v. Wade, which has finally been acknowledged to have been complete horsesh*t.
You are always so full of sh*t.
Wrong again. That something is unusual doesn’t make it wrong, let alone “crazy”, “ridiculous”, “a mockery”, or something that’s inherently impossible (” the pardon power is not […] a pardon is merely […] without a conviction there can be no pardon”).
All pardons are unusual. Only a tiny percentage of people accused of crimes are ever pardoned. Defeated presidents making a comeback is highly unusual; it’s only ever happened twice. School shootings (in the sense most people understand the term, not that dishonestly used by the “gun violence archive”) are unusual in the USA. That doesn’t change anything about them when they happen.
And no, the Carter blanket pardon was not the first. They go all the way back to the Washington administration, and no one has ever questioned their legitimacy.
LOL.
That’s your argument? Since English isn’t your thing … the “HIGHLY UNUSUAL” modifier that is used is WITHIN the context of all pardons. Are you really this retarded?
I gave you the link – it’s to The Office of the Pardon Attorney at DOJ. If you have a problem with his information then go pester him about it.
Irrelevant and you know it. You’re not only clutching at straws, you are deliberately making a dishonest argument. Because you are a dishonest person.
It doesn’t matter how unusual something is; that does not affect its legitimacy at all.
You are the one who wrote:
You have now repeatedly acknowledged the opposite, but dishonestly pretend you never wrote it. Nothing you wrote there is in any way consistent with your new position that it’s merely unusual. You are just being a liar, as usual.
How “unusual” something is certainly speaks to its possible legitimacy. Things that are unusual are, generally, not legitimate – which is why they are unusual. The Office of the Pardon Attorney described what I was talking about as “HIGHLY unusual”, which lends credence to the argument that there are problems with the concept.
Further, your silly argument was that it is usual and regular and has been part of Americana for 250 years. I didn’t make that argument – YOU DID.
That’s just retarded. I never said anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out to you that the Office of the Pardon Attorney, itself, called the practice “highly unusual”, as opposed to your claims. I maintain that it was wrong in those instances, it having been a “highly unusual” practice only because people understood that it was wrong and only tried to push it through when they thought there was a possibility of getting away with something they knew was wrong. This sort of thing happens a lot, as with Roe V Wade, a decision made by the SCOTUS that everyone knew was BS from the start, but they wanted that result and forced it through when they could. It was never, however, correct or even passably logical. But it stood for 50 years, nevertheless.
Pardoned without even being indicted, pardoned of crimes you can’t even name.
Not can’t name. Don’t want to name. Joe or, if he is too senile, at least Hunter could likely name the crimes.
Anthor time a lying liberal said one king while knowing full well that wasn’t the truth.
Kinda like carrying that rattlesnake across the river, then getting bit. You knew it was a rattlesnake to begin with.
Totally predictable, sleaze begets sleaze.
Wait until he pardons his brother. If there was justice and rule of law, without politics, Joe Biden should be indicted as the Big Guy.
Biden should have apologized for himself and his family and then done it as a father.
Illegal alien amnesty!!
Thankfully, the President doesn’t have the power to confer citizenship or legal residency at his whim (though Traitor Joe has done the latter for millions – in one of the greatest crimes in American history, treason from the Oval Office).
Good. Trump’s first act upon assuming office, then, should be pardons of all J6’ers currently rotting in jail.
And those not yet charged or convicted.
Absolutely.
For any alleged “crime” from 2014 to 2024.
#47 should order a full DOJ/FBI investigation and report overseen by AG Bondi and Kash Patel, describing the full scope of the Biden crime family’s racketeering and influence-peddling schemes. Not for the purpose of prosecution, but, to publish a report for consumption by the citizenry, so that the full scope of the wretched Biden clan’s greed, criminality, entitlement and treason is laid bare.
Full Transparency!!!
Heck, surprised he didn’t pardon himself, either. And if there are any elected Democrats and party apparatchiks that might think themselves on the Trump Administrations DoJ, they’ll be begging and perhaps receive a pardon as well.
I’m fully expecting him to pardon his corrupt brother and any other member of his family who might be charged–and on the last day I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pardoning himself–he has nothing to lose
Is this blanket pardon an admission that the White House cocaine was indeed Hunters?
No, it isn’t, and there’s no particular reason to believe it was.
The pardon is not for drug charges. It’s only for the two charges he’s already admitted.
whoosh
Oops, I missed that. It does include any potential drug charges, so if the cocaine was his it would be covered. But there’s still no reason to suppose it was his. He’s hardly the only cocaine user to have had access to that area.
Anybody that said he wouldn’t is either a liar or a moron.
We all knew this corrupt drooling dementia patient was going to do it before he left.
Take note. All the NeverTrump morons that said he wouldn’t because he was a ‘moderate’ who ‘respected the rule of law’ can be ignored forever.
I expected a pardon, but not a 10 year blanket pardon for ALL federal crimes. That beyond even my expectation of Biden corruption.
Amateur. The worst things haven’t been mentioned in the mainstream press.
I did expect a blanket pardon, and was surprised when I read early reports that didn’t mention one.
If you’re going to issue a pardon, why would you not make it cover all possible charges? What do you gain by limiting it?
Well, loss of 5A protections for one. If I understand it right, Hunter can now be *compelled* to testify in cases against others in the Biden bribery scandal. Should scare the pants off some of them.
A good point. I expect additional family pardons incoming.
It’s limited to 10 years. So at least he likely didn’t murder anyone since almost everything else that would be beyond the statute of limitations.
Again, name one “never-trumper” who ever made such a claim.
“we cannot flinch from naming the outrageous assault on the rule of law being perpetrated by Trump and his supporters” – Micheal Waldman
Which has what exactly to do with the topic??? Name a “never-trumper” who ever made this claim. If you can’t then you must acknowledge that it didn’t happen, and that Olinser made it up.
Dunno about Never Trumpers, but Latrine John Pissoir stated categorically on 7 November that “That’s not what we’re going to do.”
Guess she was lying as usual.
When’s the last time she told the truth about anything?
Joe Biden: “Nobody’s above the law.”
Hunter: “Except me, right Daddy?”
Get Hunter under oath to testify about the Biden crime family; he can’t claim the fifth since there is no risk of self incrimination.
Boy, the optics of this has an unpleasant odor…like Wilmington, Delaware. It just reeks of 1950s southern democrat antics.
Does this relieve him of fifth amendment rights?
Yes, I believe it does. (Well, not all of them obviously. But the self-incrimination one, yes.)
Maybe. I think his lawyers would say that this is only a federal pardon and since he could still be charged for state crimes arising from the same incidents he still has a Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating himself.
Not sure of the caselaw on that or how it would shake out.
We all knew this was coming, no matter who said it wasn’t.
True, but only if there is a potential state charge for whatever he admits to.
Joe Biden claims Hunter was unfairly targeted and prosecuted for the very limited number of charges the DoJ actually brought. That ignores the potential charges that didn’t happen b/c they let the statute of limitations run among other reasons. It also ignores Hunter’s guilty plea to those charges.
Then Joe Biden blows his own arguments out of the water by issuing a pardon not limited to the things Hunter plead guilty to but instead issued a blanket pardon encompassing any/all actions for a bit over a decade. I don’t think anyone is truly surprised by the pardon, at least anyone with any sense. It would be interesting to know what other crimes this very broad pardon is covering.
Biden lost me at “… being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted.”
Ever hear of a guy called President Trump?
Jim and Jill to follow?
Yes.
Joe has about 50 days to continue to try to screw over the country–let’s hope he doesn’t use his power of pardon to empty the federal prisons of all prisoners, including terrorists.
No 5Th? At the very least, Hunter could be subpoenaed to testify the identity of “the big guy” who got a cut of Hunter’s earnings. He can’t plead the 5th, he can’t refuse to testify without being (newly) charged, and if he names someone other than dear old dad – and it’s a lie – it’s a new charge.
Is it normal to issue a pardon for unnamed crimes btw?
I mean, Trump could issue the J6 protestors pardons (for trespass) or commutations (for actual violence or theft), but it would be embarrassing to issue blanket pardons and it turns out someone robbed a bank or something and that’s covered as well.
Well, they had to go far enough back to cover Burisma.
No, it’s not normal, but it’s been done. The Nixon pardon, for instance, covered “all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.”
Of course that alleged pardon for Nixon was totally improper. The Presidential pardon power is not giving the President Royal powers to declare a person untouchable from anything. What Ford did was incorrect but people let it pass because it was easier to do so. It was wrong, though.
And Nixon didn’t do much to need a pardon for, anyway. The only thing he did have the missing 18 minutes, or so, of tapes. That was it. Even the actual Watergate break-in, which Nixon had nothing to do with, was not something that was totally foreign to the Democrat party, or the alleged slush fund. Nixon didn’t need any sort of real pardon, let alone a BS, illegitimate blanket pardon that made a mockery of the pardon power.
Who says it was improper? The constitution gives the president plenary power to pardon anyone for anything. The only limit, which is inherent in the very definition of a pardon, is that he can’t prospectively pardon future offenses.
And Nixon was in fact accused of several actual crimes, for which he could in principle have been prosecuted once he was out of office. The Congressional Democrats would have demanded his prosecution. The pardon prevented that.
It was a political prosecution anyway, just by Republicans. It’s good to know that Biden is sensitive to the need to end political prosecutions.
So lying on a 4473 and being a tax cheat are “political prosecutions” now? Good to know.
Smokin’ hot take, doofus.
No, it wasn’t a political prosecution. If his name had been anything but Biden he’d have been prosecuted far earlier and for much more.
“Unbelievable”
Really. Totally to be expected. That he didn’t include himself, his wife, etc. etc. ad nauseum in the pardon is the bigger surprise.
On the way out the door 1/20/25
Weekend@Bidens has been using reverse-psychology for the last 4 yrs. Just the other day after saying Trump would start WWIII, has pressed the WWIII red button himself allowing the Ukraine to use US missiles.
Gotta watch GUTFELD tomorrow night for sure. It will be hilarious.
Fine. Going after Hunter would get us nothing anyway. And now Trump has a nice argument to pardon a lot of J6 people, using Biden’s same argument of selective prosecution, also oversentencing … basically if Joe can do it, Donald can too. And then we’re even.
Why now? He will be pardoned by President Kamala Harris.
Everyone knew Joe was going to pardon Hunter and everyone knew Joe was lying when he denied it. I didn’t expect the 10 year blanket pardon. I figured Joe would go back at least 20 years.
He will, you know he will
Pardon all his staff
https://x.com/amuse/status/1863422760539623496
Phew!
Biden had lied about nearly every other issue, and for half a second there, I thought he might keep his word and not pardon Hunter.
Then there is a bridge I have for sale for just you!
And THAT’s why you always pay your 10% to be Big Guy.
Leave a Comment