Pardon Me, Mister President

Joe Biden claimed he was worried Trump would politicize the Justice Department, so he politicized it. He pardoned his son, Hunter, despite having pled guilty to multiple felonies, and is planning to possibly pardon a slew of other people for crimes they have been charged with and hypothetical crimes not yet charged.

President Joe Biden’s sweeping pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, marks a controversial and consequential moment in his presidency.

Announced shortly after Biden’s Thanksgiving retreat to Nantucket, the pardon clears Hunter of federal gun and tax charges, as well as any other potential federal crimes over the past decade. Biden cited what he called “unfair and selective prosecution” of his son.

Still, the decision has drawn bipartisan backlash, with critics accusing him of breaking his earlier promise not to pardon Hunter.

The pardon further tarnishes Biden’s legacy, already stained by numerous instances of presidential failure, overreach, and suspension or circumvention of the democratic process.

A U.S. judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s tax fraud case criticized President Biden’s statement accompanying his son’s pardon, calling it an attempt to “rewrite history.”

Judge Mark C. Scarsi pointed out inconsistencies between the president’s claims of “selective and unfair prosecution” and the case record, which showed Hunter Biden admitted to evading taxes even after overcoming his drug addiction.

The sweeping pardon clears Hunter Biden of tax and gun-related charges. Prosecutors and multiple judges previously rejected claims of selective prosecution, emphasizing that the investigation was handled by President Biden’s own Justice Department.

Despite his concerns, Scarsi vacated the sentencing hearing and indicated the case would soon be officially closed.

Meanwhile, Biden is reportedly considering issuing preemptive pardons for current and former officials who could face legal retribution from President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration.

The move, prompted by concerns over potential “revenge attacks” against outspoken Trump critics like Liz Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Senator-elect Adam Schiff, is still under discussion.

While the U.S. Constitution grants broad pardon powers, preemptive pardons for uncharged offenses are largely untested and could backfire by inviting claims of guilt. The discussions intensified after Trump appointed Kash Patel as FBI director, who has vowed to target Trump’s critics.

“There is no president who is a king, no Congress that’s a House of Lords,” Biden once said, referring to Trump, but what he actually meant was “only a Democrat president is above the law.”

Blanket pardons issued by a president, especially for individuals who may come under investigation by a new administration, pose significant risks. By shielding people from future legal scrutiny, these pardons undermine the principle of accountability.

They essentially remove the possibility of justice being served, even if serious wrongdoing occurred. This can send a dangerous message that certain individuals are above the law, eroding public trust in the justice system.

Moreover, blanket pardons often create the perception of guilt. Pardoning individuals who haven’t even been charged implies there is something to hide, fueling skepticism and distrust.

It can also embolden unethical behavior by signaling that allies of a particular administration can avoid prosecution, setting a troubling precedent for future governments.

The use of sweeping pardons also deepens political polarization. Opponents see such actions as shielding allies from legitimate investigations, exacerbating partisan divides and making it harder for administrations to work together. This political fallout can destabilize governance and diminish trust in democratic institutions.

Legally, preemptive pardons are largely untested and raise questions about executive overreach. While the Constitution grants broad pardon powers, these actions can interfere with the judicial branch’s role in investigating and prosecuting crimes, undermining the system of checks and balances.

Ultimately, the blanket use of pardons weakens the very foundations of democracy. It not only shields individuals from accountability but also undermines public confidence in fair and transparent governance.

Now that Trump is set to return to office, Republicans have renewed calls for the prosecution of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a key figure in the U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Critics, including Elon Musk and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, allege that Fauci suppressed information about COVID-19’s origins and accuse him of funding research that contributed to the pandemic—claims Fauci has consistently denied.

However, there is considerable evidence suggesting that lockdowns and other measures caused significant harm and that Fauci may bear responsibility.

Regarding the virus’s origins, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Roger Marshall (R-KS) and others believe that there is evidence linking Fauci to gain-of-function research conducted in cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party.

Marshall said. “For the last decade, Dr. Fauci has funded gain-of-function research on SARS viruses, and until we get to the bottom of the origins of COVID-19, the federal government should not provide another dime in funding for viral gain-of-function research in the name of global health.”

Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets emphasize Fauci’s declarations of innocence and, in line with the prevailing narrative of the past four years, suggest that his word alone should suffice to dismiss calls for investigation or charges.

The post Pardon Me, Mister President appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.