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.

Summary

President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, reversing his prior stance against using executive clemency.

The pardon covers Hunter’s federal gun conviction and tax evasion guilty plea, sparking political controversy.

Biden cited political attacks and a “miscarriage of justice” as reasons for his decision, emphasizing his son’s recovery from addiction and the targeting of his family.

Critics argue the move undermines the judicial process, while supporters view it as within Biden’s constitutional powers.

This decision shields Hunter from potential prison time as Biden nears the end of his presidency.

  • @Furbag
    1•21 hours ago

    Have you ever smoked a joint? Have you been to a gun range? If so, you committed practically the same felony hunter did.

    I’ve never done either of these things, but if I did, I sure wouldn’t lie about not having ever done it on a government form.

    To be clear, I do not think that the law is fair or just, nor do I think that it’s application to Hunter in such a high profile case was warranted, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Republicans applying political pressure to Hunter Biden does not give Joe Biden carte blanche to be a hypocrite without some strong condemnations from people like myself.

    The one thing I’ve learned from this thread is that nobody believes in objective justice. Trump supporters will say Trump’s felony convictions were politically motivated, Biden’s supporters will say Hunter’s felony convictions were politically motivated, and everybody is perfectly happy to discount witness testimony or a jury’s verdict so long as it suits their own subjective sense of justice, that as long as “their team” is winning, it’s right and just and fair.

    • @[email protected]English
      5•18 hours ago

      Hardly. Both sides can say the the prosecution was politically-motivated, but that’s where the similarity ends. One side has a long history of just saying things that sound good to them, and when called on it, falling silent and disengaging from discussion. The other side has evidence, or at least a strong argument that they are able to articulate. It’s not objective justice to ignore that.