From Hero to Hypocrite: Biden’s Pardon of Hunter and the Shattered Promise of Justice
Yesterday, President Joe Biden took an action that should shock even his most loyal supporters. He broke his explicit promise to the American people by pardoning his son, Hunter Biden. This decision stands in stark contrast to his earlier assurances, which many Democrats eagerly used to uphold their narrative of integrity and a commitment to the rule of law. They quickly celebrated Biden’s pledge not to interfere with Hunter's prosecution, using it as a rhetorical weapon against Donald Trump. Longtime mainstream media reporter John Harwood went so far as to disparage skeptics, writing on X, "people who insist Biden will pardon Hunter after specifically ruling it out are telling on themselves they can’t imagine someone acting on principle and keeping his word." Now, with Biden’s complete reversal, the hypocrisy is undeniable and deserves rigorous examination—especially from those who so vocally praised his earlier stance.
Let us take a step back to understand the landscape. Biden’s promise not to interfere in Hunter's prosecution was celebrated as an exemplary moment of transparency, a clear attempt to paint himself as the anti-Trump. Democrats lined up to praise Biden’s respect for the rule of law, proclaiming that his refusal to pardon Hunter epitomized a commitment to fairness and justice. Quotes from figures like Nancy Pelosi, who lauded Biden for 'restoring trust in the independence of the justice system,' and Chuck Schumer, who called Biden's stance 'a model of ethical leadership,' exemplify the widespread support for Biden’s original promise. For those same Democrats, this promise was a tool to cast Trump as a villain—someone who would pervert the justice system for personal gain, an accusation that underscored their favorite narrative that Trump was a "danger to democracy," a would-be authoritarian, even the next Hitler. These hyperbolic declarations were crafted to reinforce an image: Biden as the paragon of democracy, and Trump as its villainous foe.
Yet here we stand. The once-celebrated refusal to pardon has given way to an all-encompassing pardon for Hunter Biden, conveniently issued at what can only be described as the most opportune moment for the president. First, this past weekend represented the best time for Biden to pardon his son before Hunter's December 12, 2024 sentencing hearing on the three felony gun charges on which a jury convicted him in June. Second, reports from the White House indicate that Hunter told his father this weekend that he was planning to release a tell-all book because he needed the money and had nothing to lose, given his impending imprisonment. In response, a day later, Joe issued the pardon without consulting anyone else in the administration, much less the pardon advisory group he is supposed to talk to. It would seem Biden was buying his son's silence. The timing is also significant given the incoming Trump administration, with Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel likely to link Joe Biden directly to Hunter's various FARA and tax violations, especially as they involved the sale of Joe's influence and the money ultimately ended up in Joe's accounts. By issuing the pardon now, Joe appears to be providing cover for himself, shielding against investigations that could expose his own role in these matters. The Hunter Biden case was not just any legal matter—it was painted as the acid test for Biden's integrity. And he failed it. Democrats have fallen silent now, the once-celebrated rhetoric of "no one is above the law" reduced to a whisper. The hypocrisy is astounding, and it has deep ramifications for the very institutions that these political actors profess to uphold.
In evaluating this move, one must question the role of the Department of Justice and its leadership—particularly Attorney General Merrick Garland. If Biden’s own words are to be believed, the DOJ under Garland’s stewardship was, in Biden’s view, politically compromised. Biden has gone so far as to accuse the DOJ of "selective prosecution" against his son—a term he himself previously dismissed when Trump claimed the same during his own legal battles, saying it was 'just another baseless attempt to distract from accountability.' He has claimed that the process was politically tainted, resulting in a "miscarriage of justice." One has to ask: is Merrick Garland now unfit for his position, according to Biden's own logic?
If Garland were merely the impartial custodian of justice that Democrats once heralded, why would Biden accuse the DOJ of unfairly targeting his son? Garland, after all, was the handpicked Attorney General, chosen precisely for his supposed neutrality and adherence to the law. At the time of his appointment, Biden praised Garland as 'a man of unimpeachable integrity' and emphasized his commitment to ensuring the DOJ's independence from political influence. Other officials echoed this sentiment, portraying Garland as the perfect candidate to restore faith in a justice system that they claimed had been politically compromised under the previous administration. The allegations that the DOJ was weaponized against Hunter because of his father's political enemies directly mirror the exact language Trump used to describe his own legal battles—language that Democrats loudly condemned. Yet Biden, with no trace of irony, now claims political bias within his own administration. Shouldn’t Garland resign if Biden’s accusations are valid? If the DOJ is politically compromised, then Garland is either incompetent or corrupt—or both.
This situation also casts a harsh light on FBI Director Christopher Wray, who publicly condemned threats against FBI and DOJ personnel following the Mar-a-Lago search in 2022. At that time, Democrats rallied behind Wray's statements, championing him as a protector of the integrity of law enforcement. Now, with Biden making similar claims against the DOJ, the natural question arises: where are the condemnations of Biden's own accusations? Do these same critics believe that Biden’s assertions are not dangerous to DOJ and FBI personnel? Or do those dangers only exist when political convenience dictates?
Wray spoke of "vigilance" and "safety" when FBI agents faced threats following Trump’s statements. But Biden’s accusations of DOJ misconduct hold no less potential to incite, especially given the highly charged climate surrounding Hunter Biden’s legal troubles. If Biden's rhetoric goes unchecked, should Wray not address the potential impact with the same urgency? The answer seems to be no, which only further illustrates the double standard at play.
The Democratic establishment, in defending Biden’s original non-interference stance, portrayed themselves as champions of institutional integrity. "No one is above the law," they said. Biden’s reversal has betrayed that sentiment entirely, demonstrating that principles are apparently situational—a virtue when politically advantageous, disposable when inconvenient. In this light, the pardon becomes not an act of compassion, but one of desperation. It protects Hunter Biden not only from accountability but shields Joe Biden himself from further inquiry into matters that might entangle him.
The whistleblower testimonies presented before Hunter's pardon painted a damning picture. They detailed how the DOJ allegedly provided preferential treatment to Hunter Biden—refusing to authorize a search of his father's residence due to 'appearances,' tipping off key witnesses before FBI questioning, and allowing significant charges to expire without action. One whistleblower even testified that the plea deal Hunter received was so unusually lenient that the judge overseeing the case questioned its legality and propriety. They revealed instances where the DOJ seemingly gave Hunter Biden preferential treatment—refusing to authorize searches, tipping off witnesses, and letting serious charges expire. The subsequent plea deal was so unorthodox that even the judge questioned its legitimacy, stating in court, 'I've never seen a deal like this in my entire career. It raises significant questions about fairness and equal treatment under the law.' These facts were readily available when Biden made his original promise to not interfere, and they remain unchanged now. The circumstances of the investigation did not shift—only Biden's calculation of the political risks involved.
Biden’s pardon of Hunter has granted his son immunity across an extensive range of potential offenses, effectively ensuring that he will not be held accountable for anything from financial fraud, tax evasion, and violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), to more serious allegations involving money laundering and influence peddling, which directly implicate his father's involvement in questionable business dealings. What Democrats once called a commitment to fairness and the justice system—promising that Hunter would be treated like any other citizen—has turned into an expansive act of clemency that would make any authoritarian blush. It seems that the claim of "no one being above the law" was merely a placeholder, used only until it became inconvenient.
The pardoning of Hunter Biden demands accountability not just from President Biden but also from those leading the DOJ and FBI. Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray, by their silence or their inaction, appear complicit in a process that is deeply compromised, at least by Biden's own account. If Garland allowed a politically motivated prosecution, as Biden asserts, then he is either a failure or an accomplice, and there is no reason he should continue to lead the DOJ. The same standard should apply to Wray, whose job, ostensibly, is to keep his agency independent of partisan influence.
Democrats were quick to applaud Biden when he initially vowed not to intervene in his son's legal affairs, casting him as a defender of justice and the rule of law. Now that he has done exactly the opposite, those same voices are conspicuously silent. If Biden truly believed in the rule of law, he would have allowed the legal process to run its course—without intervention or preferential treatment. Instead, he chose to compromise these principles, revealing them to be mere tools of political convenience.
Now, calls are emerging from within the Democratic Party urging Biden to issue preemptive pardons for his cabinet, key DOJ and FBI officials, Jack Smith, and other prominent Democrats ahead of Trump's inauguration. The argument is that these pardons are essential to protect these individuals from scrutiny by the incoming administration. Given that self-pardons remain legally untested and could pose significant risks, some Democrats have floated the idea of Biden undergoing another colonoscopy, temporarily transferring power to Kamala Harris. Under this scenario, Harris would grant Biden a full pardon while serving as acting president—an elaborate maneuver to shield Biden before he resumes his duties.
These controversial preemptive pardons appear to be just the beginning. Ironically, the silver lining is that such actions might provide Trump with cover to pardon the January 6 prisoners and numerous other individuals who have been targeted by Biden’s and the Democrats’ use of legal mechanisms for political purposes. The hypocrisy here is glaring, and it speaks volumes about the situational ethics at play—it should be disqualifying for anyone who claims to champion the integrity of democratic institutions.
If you don't already, please follow me on 𝕏 at https://x.com/amuse