President Biden faced mounting criticism on Monday for the “sweeping” pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, with critics citing fears that it could be used to further his views of a “politicized” Justice Department and erode the role of the judiciary as an important check on executive power.
In a statement announcing the pardon, Biden took aim at what he described as a politically motivated investigation. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong,” the president wrote.
The pardon covers a nearly 11-year period, starting from January 2014, the year Hunter was appointed to the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, to Sunday, the day the White House announced the pardon. This means that charges cannot be brought against Hunter Biden for any actions he took during this period.
Critics argue that Biden broke his own repeated declarations that he would not pardon Hunter earlier this year. First, after Hunter was found guilty in June on three felony firearm charges, and then in September after he pleaded guilty to separate federal charges of tax evasion.
Trey Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor and member of Congress, said that the breadth of the pardon “could really could not be more sweeping, to be honest with you.” The time frame included in the pardon covers “almost all federal statutes of limitations,” Gowdy said, “For the vast majority of federal crimes, this covers this time period and means that charges cannot be brought.”
Experts say that the pardon could further erode public trust in the Justice Department, giving more credence to Trump’s frequent complaints that the Department of Justice is a political apparatus capable of being “weaponized” rather than a department that strives to act independently and largely without political influence.
Some lawmakers and legal analysts separately cited fears that the pardon could lead to a perception of a broader shift in the Justice Department’s priorities, away from impartial enforcement and toward more selective prosecution.
