Hunter Biden's Pardon Is Unprecedented
Joe Biden has left the Democratic Party in a very awkward position.
President Joe Biden's decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, has put the Democratic Party and many mainstream media commentators on the defensive. Numerous liberal figures took Biden at his word when he said he would never pardon Hunter, and gleefully contrasted the president's self-sacrifice and fidelity to principles with what they see as the lawlessness of President-elect Donald Trump.
A few Democrats have smartly criticized Biden for breaking his promise; Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, for instance, blasted Biden for putting "family ahead of country." Others were left flailing: Rep. Dan Goldman (D–N.Y.) attempted to draw a distinction between the political situation at the time Biden made his promise and the current moment. Viewers are unlikely to find themselves convinced.
That's because the pardon is unprecedented. It's true that past presidents have issued controversial pardons: Gerald Ford, for instance, pardoned his embattled predecessor, Richard Nixon. There are also examples of presidents pardoning someone close to them: Bill Clinton pardoned his half brother, Roger Clinton.
The Hunter pardon is far more comprehensive, however, in that it covered not just his convictions for drug-related activities and tax fraud, but any other criminal behavior since 2014—the year that Hunter joined the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma. It has been alleged that Hunter's job was essentially to trade on the family name and sell his access to dad. This may not have been illegal, but it does mean that the pardon is clearly designed to offer preemptive protection not just to Hunter, but to Joe Biden himself.
These features make the pardon unprecedented, though perfectly in line with the president's executive powers.
Pardon Me?
Nevertheless, some media commentators have attempted to defend the pardon by pointing to similar actions undertaken by previous presidents. But a few individuals have actually made up entirely fictitious pardons.
Enter Charles Pierce, a liberal commentator and political blogger for Esquire magazine. Earlier this week, he wrote a column saying that people should "shut the fuck up" about the Hunter Biden pardon because George H.W. Bush did the same thing—he pardoned his son Neil for financial crimes.
"Nobody defines Poppy Bush's presidency by his son's struggles or the pardons he issued on his way out of the White House," wrote Pierce.
There's just one problem with that: George H.W. Bush never pardoned Neil Bush. And Neil was never charged with a crime—he was sued in a civil action, and paid $50,000 to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). What on earth is Pierce talking about?
Grant Stern, executive editor of Occupy Democrats, made a similar and even more egregious mistake. He wrote on X:
Jimmy Carter pardoned his brother Billy Carter who took over $200,000 from Libya as its foreign agent.
George H.W. Bush pardoned his son Neil Bush for his role in the S&L scandals of the 1980s.
Nobody thinks those pardons defined either presidency.
Joe Biden's pardon of Hunter Biden won't either.
Now we're throwing not just George H.W. Bush under the bus, but Jimmy Carter as well! Quick fact-check here: Neither George H.W. Bush nor Carter issued controversial family pardons. This allegation that Carter pardoned his brother Billy is completely made up. Billy Carter was accused of influence peddling on behalf of the Libyan government, but he was never charged with any crime. Carter said at the time he was uncomfortable with his brother's activities but they had nothing to do with his own Libya policies. That was that.
As CNN's Andrew Kaczynski put it: "Neither of these examples are real! Where are people even getting this from."
Where indeed? Well, a similar error committed by The View's Ana Navarro provides a clue. Earlier this week, she wrote a post on X likening Biden's pardon of Hunter to an alleged pardon made by Woodrow Wilson on behalf of his brother-in-law, Hunter deButts.
You can probably guess where this is going: There is no evidence that such a person ever existed, nor that he was pardoned by President Wilson. Wherever did Navarro come by this notion? As it so happens, a chastened Navarro explained in a subsequent statement that she had asked ChatGPT to provide other examples of family pardons.
That's a cautionary tale. ChatGPT is an exciting technology with great promise, but people who use it should still double-check their work. And one might expect someone like Navarro, who is consistently paranoid about the purported spread of online misinformation, to be a little bit more careful here. No ifs, ands, or Hunter deButts.
Getting Ahead of Ourselves
Meanwhile, Biden allies are reportedly discussing preemptive pardons for several political figures they expect to come under investigation during the second Trump administration. According to POLITICO, those individuals include Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.), Liz Cheney, and…Anthony Fauci.
Biden issuing a pre-emptive pardon for Fauci would be truly, deeply awful.
— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) December 4, 2024
This Week on Free Media
I am joined by Michael LaRosa, former press secretary to Jill Biden, to discuss the pardon, infighting at MSNBC, tariffs, and DOGE cuts.
We'll have a new guest next week as well, and then Amber Duke will return in January. Stay tuned for some exciting news and additions to the Free Media lineup!
Worth Watching
Unusually for me, I saw two movies in theaters last week: Gladiator II and Wicked. I'll have more to say about Wicked next week. For the time being, I must note—unfortunately—that I really, really disliked Gladiator II. This is disappointing; I'm as fond of the original as most other people are. This unnecessary sequel is simultaneously too tied to the original film but also extremely convoluted. The performances are dull and uninspiring, and Denzel Washington's character is pointlessly unhinged. The battles look fake, and the character of Maximus, the Russel Crowe character from the first film, is posthumously ruined. It's too long…I could go on.
If you're an absolute Gladiator obsessive, you might still enjoy this flick, I guess—though you are likely to be let down.
