By Peter Baker
Both President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump now share a common viewpoint: The Biden Justice Department has indeed become politicized.
In extending a pardon to his son Hunter Biden on Sunday evening, the sitting president echoed thoughts similar to those of his successor by lamenting selective prosecution and political influence, questioning the impartiality of a system that Joe Biden had consistently defended until now.
“No reasonable individual evaluating Hunter’s cases can reach any conclusion other than Hunter was targeted solely because he is my son — and that’s unjust,” Biden stated in his announcement of the pardon. “Here’s the reality,” he continued. “I have faith in the justice system, but in grappling with this matter, I also believe that raw politics have tainted this process and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”
Biden’s move to utilize the extraordinary authority of executive clemency to erase his son’s convictions on firearms and tax offenses was made despite his past claims, alongside his aides, that he would refrain from doing so. Just last summer, after Hunter was found guilty at trial, the president dismissed the notion of a pardon, asserting that “I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to honor the judicial process.” The statement he released Sunday evening clearly indicated that he did not accept the outcome or have respect for the process.
The pardon and Biden’s articulated reasoning for it will undoubtedly muddle the political landscape as Trump readies to assume office with intentions to employ the Justice Department and FBI to seek “retribution” against his political foes. Trump has long maintained that the justice system has been “weaponized” against him and he views himself as a victim of selective prosecution, similar to how Biden has now asserted regarding his son.
However, their arguments differ significantly in key ways. Trump claims that the two indictments against him issued by Biden’s Justice Department constituted a partisan witch hunt targeting the primary rival of the sitting president. While Biden did not directly accuse the Justice Department of bias against his family, he intimated that it was swayed by Republican officials who have conducted a lengthy public campaign against Hunter Biden.
In fact, the Justice Department has rejected both claims. The prosecutions of Trump and Hunter Biden were each overseen by distinct special counsels specifically appointed to protect the cases from political bias, and senior department officials have denied any political influence in either case. There is no evidence suggesting Biden was involved in Trump’s cases.
Nonetheless, Biden’s pardon complicates Democrats’ efforts to uphold the integrity of the Justice Department and oppose Trump’s unapologetic strategies to use it for political ends, particularly as he aims to appoint Kash Patel, an adviser who has vowed to “target” the president-elect’s adversaries, as the next FBI director. This also presents challenges for Democrats in criticizing Trump’s extensive usage of the pardon power to clear friends and allies, some of whom could have served as witnesses against him in former investigations.
“While I completely empathize with President @JoeBiden’s instinctive desire to assist his son through a pardon, I am saddened that he prioritized family over the nation,” wrote Colorado Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, on social media. “This sets a harmful precedent that could be misused by future presidents and will regrettably tarnish his legacy.”
Representative Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., challenged the president’s view that politics motivated his son’s prosecution. “I respect President Biden, but I believe he is mistaken on this,” he stated online. “This was not a politically-driven prosecution. Hunter committed crimes and was convicted by a jury of his peers.”
Other Democrats sought to differentiate between the Biden and Trump situations. Former Attorney General Eric Holder asserted that no prosecutor would have pursued charges against Hunter Biden, and therefore, the pardon was justified.
“Consider a much more critical question,” he posted on social media. “Do you genuinely believe Kash Patel is fit to lead the world’s foremost law enforcement investigative agency? Obvious answer: absolutely not.”
It is clear that the legal cases against Trump and Hunter Biden are hardly equivalent. Trump faced charges for illegally attempting to overturn an election he lost in order to cling to power and, in a separate charge, for jeopardizing national security and obstructing justice by retaining classified documents after leaving office and refusing to return them. Those cases are currently being dismissed due to his election.
Hunter Biden was found guilty of lying on a gun purchase application regarding his drug use and pleaded guilty to not paying taxes, which he later settled, with penalties. Some legal experts have concurred with the president’s claim that these offenses would typically have been resolved without felony charges.
However, the president contradicted his previous commitment not to interfere in the case. In his statement, he remarked that he had promised he would “not meddle with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my promise even as I witnessed my son being selectively and unfairly prosecuted.” He did not acknowledge that he failed to uphold his word concerning the pardon.
Trump quickly capitalized on the pardon to draw dubious parallels. “Does the Pardon bestowed by Joe on Hunter encompass the J-6 Hostages, who have been imprisoned for years?” he posted on social media, referring to the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to impede Congress from certifying Trump’s loss. “Such an abuse and miscarriage of justice!”
In his pardon statement, Biden aimed to appeal to compassion for a father of a son battling addiction, presenting his choice in personal terms as Hunter faced the prospect of years behind bars. “I hope Americans will comprehend why a father and a president would arrive at this decision,” he expressed.
Had he stopped at that, it could have been more straightforward. However, it was his critique of the prosecution that raised concerns regarding a two-tiered justice system. “There has been a concerted effort to break Hunter — who has been sober for five and a half years, even amidst relentless attacks and selective prosecution,” the president asserted. “In attempting to break Hunter, they’ve endeavored to break me — and there’s no reason to think it will conclude here. Enough is enough.”
