The Fascinating Aspects of Hunter Biden’s Pardon by President Biden
An interesting aspect of President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter is the scope of the clemency order. Instead of limiting the pardon to the two cases for which Hunter was found guilty, it covers all potential federal crimes in which Hunter may have been culpable from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.
The evidence of the Biden family influence-peddling business largely occurred between 2014 and 2016. This period saw the onset of Hunter’s board seat on Burisma, as well as the beginning of lucrative schemes tied to the Chinese Communist Party. Moreover, during this time frame, Joe Biden was VP and used his political influence to advance his son’s business interests.
The president’s pardon raises several questions, including why Hunter wasn’t prosecuted for failing to register as a foreign agent under the FARA law. It also sparks a comparison with the Ukrainian business activities of Paul Manafort, President Trump’s one-time 2016 campaign chairman. Despite the similar nature of their cases, Hunter and Manafort received vastly different treatment, with Manafort being subject to a harsh sentence for FARA violations, among other charges.
Because the Biden Justice Department declined to pursue charges against Hunter and his co-conspirators, there is concern about a two-tiered justice system in which the rules do not apply equally to everyone. The president is taking no chances, attempting to prevent any further investigations or criminal charges from being filed.
The sweeping scope of the pardon may not have the desired effect, as it could lead an aggressive prosecutor to create a conspiracy theory that involves the president, his brother Jim, and Hunter, continuing after 2016, and perhaps even into 2020 and beyond. An investigation could uncover proof that might not be strong or might even be nonexistent but could still be perceived as unfair.
Ultimately, the president’s pardon effort aims to foreclose any further investigation of Hunter Biden’s activities during the 2014-16 period. It remains to be seen how this development will affect the public’s perception of justice and fairness.
