 |
| Hunter Biden and his father |
I therefore do not for a minute fault President Biden for doing so in the case of his own son, Hunter. Those who are upset by that because the rule of law should take precedence over one’s personal feelings are making a mistake. Because the law was followed here. The president has the absolute right to pardon anyone he chooses for any reason he chooses. Or for no reason at all.
What is of particular interest here is the reason the president changed his mind. Until yesterday, he pledged on several occasions that he would absolutely not pardon his son. That he trusted the legal system and would abide by their decision. Here is what he said about why he changed his mind:
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.
Prosecutors took umbrage at that comment. They said that they treated the defendant no
differently than they would have treated any other defendant in a similar case. That he was the
president’s son was irrelevant.
Sounds good. But I happen to agree with the president. Hunter Biden was brought to trial for political reasons. Even though the charges were legitimate - and the trail and verdict were fair, there is little doubt in my mind that politics played a major role in why he was prosecuted.
What the president did is corroborate my belief that the former president's indictments were politically motivated, too. Even though there was hard evidence of legitimate crimes, the people that decided to prosecute the former president were motivated by politics.
Those who have been denying that should consider what the president just said. I think he was right about his son’s case as I am about the former president’s case.
A lot of conservative Republicans have been saying that the Biden Justice Department has been weaponized. Liberal Democrats have scoffed at that claim. Calling it absurd. Well, maybe they should reconsider their claim in light of what our president - a Democrat - just said.
What about the law that was broken? Doesn’t it matter that some people don’t have to pay the consequences of their actions while other people do? Is that not the height of injustice?
Perhaps. But that is the law under our constitution. Should the constitution be changed because of a law built into it that seems so unjust? I don’t know. But for those who say that the constitution is sacrosanct and should never be changed, I think it is fair to point out what seems to be an injustice built into it.
Please do not misunderstand. In no way do I think we ought to do away wth the constitution. But I do think it is fair to say that it is not a perfect document and is flawed at least in this one way.
Meanwhile the president elect made the following comment after hearing about the pardon:
“Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years? Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!” the president-elect said, referring to rioters who have been accused of storming the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack.
Not at all surprised by this reaction. There has been a lot of outrage at the idea of Trump pardoning the insurrectionists that breached the Capitol Building on that fateful January 6th day.
But upon closer examination I think it matters who did what on that day. Not all were insurrectionists. I understand that all the convictions were probably just as a matter of law. But there are probably some people in prison right now that were just caught up in the moment and never intended to break into the capital.
Once broken into, they just followed the crowd. All in the spirit of protesting an election they were convinced was stolen from their candidate. It doesn’t matter that they were wrong about that. They believed it and were there that day exercising their right to protest. And then they made a mistake.
Although they still broke the law, that is qualitatively different than the people who violently broke into the Capital Building where a lot of people got hurt. And then threatening violence to members of Congress doing their jobs that day. Those were mostly organized members of extremist right wing militias that came there to do exactly what they did. To have an insurrection and take over the government for their candidate.
They deserved what they got. But what about the others that had nothing to do with them. While they probably got justice in terms of the letter of the law, is it so outrageous for Trump to want to pardon them? I don't think it is. Trump sees them as people that supported him and got punished for it. (I don’t think Trump wants to pardon those who were violent,)
I’m not saying I would necessarily agree with pardoning them. But at the same time I don’t see it qualitatively different than the president pardoning his son.
Just some food for thought.
