By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Founding Fathers did not intend for presidential pardons to be unlimited in the way President Joseph Biden recently gave away one for his son, Hunter Biden. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the President the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” During the Constitutional Convention during the Summer of 1787, if one refers to Madison’s Notes on the Federal Convention, there was significant debate regarding the scope of the President’s power to pardon, with George Mason (who later did not sign the Constitution because it failed to have a Bill of Rights) verbalizing concern that the President might abuse his power to pardon to protect his political allies, or even to commit treason. James Madison led a chorus of Founders who argued that pardons should be limited, especially in cases of treason, and that there should be some kind of check against a President’s ability to pardon. They were concerned, after all, that the President may try to operate like a king, and use his powers to consolidate political power or operate in a manner that he assumed was out of reach and beyond any outside oversight.
The intention may have also been, when it came to the opinions of various Founding Fathers, that conviction must be required before a pardon may be offered, but in the language used in the constitutional clause regarding pardons, the text does not specify the requirement of a conviction. The Court’s, in turn, have chosen to broadly interpret the clause, considering the pardon power as being “plenary,” and not subject to congressional modification. That said, abuse of the power to pardon may still be subject to scrutiny, and could lead to a President being subject to a potential impeachment if the power is abused.
Following the War Between the States, after which the Lincolnian Republicans claimed that the secession of the Confederate States was also considered to be insurrection, the Republicans called for former Confederate Officials to be not only disallowed to hold office ever again, but that if they were lawyers they must be disbarred. With the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, there was genuine concern that his successor, Democrat Andrew Johnson from Tennessee, may try to use his position as President to pardon his fellow southerners. However, the 1867 Ex parte Garland case, when it reached the Supreme Court, established after the High Court’s ruling that the President’s pardon power is unlimited (except in cases of impeachment), that the pardon did not require a conviction, and that Congress may not punish anyone for any crime covered by a presidential pardon.
After President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 due to the pressure of the Watergate Scandal, and shortly before Congress had a chance to impeach him, President Gerald Ford established a precedent regarding pardons that followed the allowances established by the Ex parte Garland ruling by pardoning Nixon with a “full, free, and absolute pardon,” ending any possibility of indictment.
Armed with that knowledge, President Joe Biden provided for his son, Hunter Biden, the mother of all pardons. The sweeping blanket pardon pretty much let’s Hunter off the hook for all of his Biden family criminal activities for the last ten years. The political world has gone crazy in all different directions regarding the pardon, and Karine Jean-Pierre, President Joe Biden’s Press Secretary and one of his senior advisors, found herself talking to the media while fielding questions aboard Air Force One about it, claiming that Hunter Biden was targeted with lawsuits because of his last name – calling any legal targeting of the President’s son “war politics.” The President’s Press Secretary claimed Joe Biden’s sweeping blanket pardon was necessary because the cases brought against Hunter Biden were “politically infected.” Any opposition to Biden’s pardon, according to Jean-Pierre, is a “twisting and misrepresenting” of the issue. Of the inquiries and charges against Hunter Biden, Jean-Pierre stated that President Biden “believes that war politics infected the process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.”
The issuance of the pardon, we are being told, therefore, is essentially saying that the sweeping pardon of Hunter by President Biden was necessary to correct a wrong, a wrong of false prosecution and a “miscarriage of justice.” Before the pardon was recently issued, both Biden and Jean-Pierre repeatedly assured Americans there would be no pardon out of respect to the legal system and so that they would not sound like the hated Trump sounded – arguing that the criminal cases were brought on because of political motivation. Suddenly, they don’t respect the justice system? Suddenly, it’s necessary to bail out the President’s son, and in such a way that he can’t even be investigated over any wrong doing over the last ten years?
Despite the assurance that a pardon would not happen (yet another lie noticed by the voting public), Hunter Biden’s clemency includes not only federal crimes that he has been charged with, convicted of, or that he admitted guilt to, but the pardon issued insulates Biden’s son from ever facing any federal crimes he may have possibly committed during the span of the last decade. As Biden’s critics scream that the pardon goes beyond the pale regarding what was intended regarding presidential pardons, the White House’s response runs back to the pardon of Richard Nixon.
Hunter Biden is safe not just regarding anything he has been charged with, but anything that he could be charged with even though those charges have not seen the light of day, yet. Joe Biden gave his son a “full and unconditional” pardon that is written with so much ambiguity that it is designed to outlast any challenges. On the table for Hunter Biden, if not for this pardon, would be charges of bribery, illegal lobbying, and various criminal activities stemming from his foreign business activities and drug addiction. America expected the pardon to be for the gun crimes for which Hunter was convicted and the tax crimes for which he pleaded guilty, but nobody expected that the pardon would cover all “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in” from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.
The starting date in 2014 makes sure that Hunter Biden’s activities as a board member of Burisma Holdings, a Ukranian gas company what was being used to launder criminal monies during a time in which the Ukrainian government could easily be considered the most corrupt government in the world. At the time, Joe Biden was Vice President, and the pardon would also shield Joe from any involvement including his infamous influence peddling schemes.
In an interesting twist, Biden’s special counsel David Weiss filed a motion with the California federal court overseeing Hunter Biden’s tax case to not dismiss the case, despite the pardon. The move reveals that the federal prosecutor rejects Hunter’s Pardon as valid, making one wonder how many other members of Biden’s own Justice Department recognizes the corruptness of the pardon.
Considering the pardon came the day after Trump announced he would nominate Kash Patel as FBI director, and considering Biden’s hands being constantly involved in Hunter’s illegal activities (if not acting as a guiding force receiving direct benefits), it is pretty obvious that Biden’s pardon of Hunter Biden was not provided due to love for his son, but self-preservation. Remember, Kash Patel, who previously served Trump as Chief of Staff to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, said of Hunter’s plea deal during the scramble to resolve his legal troubles (a deal that ultimately did not see the light of day), “As a former federal public defender and national security prosecutor, this case has singularly done more damage to the institution of justice than I’ve ever seen in my life.”
The legal world is basically saying that the nature of the sweeping pardon will bar the Justice Department from pursuing any criminal probes into Hunter’s life over the last decade. However, that does not mean that Hunter cannot be pursued. Criminals can’t help themselves, and I suspect after daddy is no longer President of the United States, Hunter will continue acting like a criminal.
O.J. Simpson’s trial also created an interesting precedent that, while I believe doing what they did was Double Jeopardy, after Simpson escaping his criminal trial they went after him civilly. While Hunter has been pardoned from all potential criminal convictions, he can still receive a civil judgment for activities during that decade.
The biggest oopsie, however, by Joe Biden regarding his son’s pardon is that it opens up Hunter as being a very dangerous witness. Now he can be used to testify for any and all people who are being chased after judicially, and he can’t use the Fifth Amendment’s “Right to Remain Silent” clause. The purpose of the clause is to protect a person from self-incriminating. Since he has been pardoned, no self-incrimination is possible, therefore the Fifth Amendment may not be used as a way to keep his mouth shut. He’s been pardoned, so there is no chance of self-incrimination, therefore he has to sing like a canary or be guilty of contempt if called to testify against Daddy “The Big Guy” Joe Biden, or any of the other criminal Democrats.
That final thing about the Fifth Amendment is why Joe Biden is considering spreading his pardon powers all over the place, I think. Then again, I am sure they realized that with, or without, Hunter’s testimony all of the criminal Democrats may be subject to indictment.
In the end, however, the Dcmocrats are also forgetting about the most important court of all. While they are utilizing Biden’s pardon-power to keep themselves out of jail, the public is watching the whole thing and the Court of Public Opinion may rule against them in the future when it comes to trying to regain political power by electoral means. While they may be playing games to keep themselves out of jail, if they keep the antics that show they believe they are above the law going, the Democratic Party may begin to fade into the annals of history, forgotten and powerless like the Federalist Party by the 1820s, and the Whigs by the 1860s.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
