In a surprising turn of events, the federal judge presiding over the tax crimes case of Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, has leveled serious accusations against the President.
The judge has charged the President with "rewriting history" and engaging in unconstitutional conduct.
As reported by The Blaze, the President sent shockwaves through the political landscape on Sunday when he announced a "full and unconditional pardon" for his son, Hunter Biden. This move was unexpected, not least because the President had previously vowed not to pardon his son. The comprehensive nature of the pardon also raised eyebrows. It covered any crime Hunter Biden may have committed or could commit from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.
The President justified the pardon by claiming that Hunter had been "selectively" and "unfairly" prosecuted. He argued that his son had been treated differently and was a victim of "selective prosecution." He further claimed that the prosecution was initiated solely because Hunter is his son.
However, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi refuted these claims on Tuesday. In a detailed five-page opinion, he criticized Hunter Biden's lawyers for failing to submit a "true and correct copy of the pardon" to the court in their motion to dismiss the charges against their client. Instead, they merely provided a link to the President's statement about the pardon.
Judge Scarsi took issue with the President's statement, stating that the "representations" therein "stand in tension with the case record." He stated, 'Nowhere does the Constitution give the president the authority to rewrite history.' He suggested that the President was not being truthful and used Hunter's own admissions to substantiate his claim.
The judge refuted the President's implication that Hunter was "among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction." He pointed out that Hunter had admitted to tax evasion during his period of addiction by wrongfully deducting personal expenses as business expenses. These included luxury clothing, escort services, and his daughters law school tuition. Furthermore, Hunter admitted that he had sufficient funds to pay his taxes but chose to maintain his lifestyle instead.
Judge Scarsi also dismissed the President's assertion that "no reasonable person" would have brought criminal charges against Hunter. He noted that multiple federal judges had already rejected this argument and that the prosecution was initiated by the President's own Justice Department.
The judge also criticized the pardon itself. While acknowledging that the Constitution grants the President "broad authority" to grant pardons, he clarified that "nowhere does the Constitution give the president the authority to rewrite history." He pointed out that the pardon covered all conduct "through" December 1, 2024, which could be interpreted as applying to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, thus exceeding the scope of the pardon power.
Despite his criticisms, Judge Scarsi stated that he would comply with the presidential intent of the pardon, regardless of its constitutional issues. He wrote, "To the extent the pardon encompasses prospective conduct, the Court deems the prospective component of the pardon severable from the component that demands the termination of this proceeding." This indicates that the charges in this case fall within the scope of the pardon, reflecting the President's intent for the pardon to apply to this case, even if it is unconstitutional in other respects.
Login