The federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s tax case issued a sharp rebuke of President Biden’s claims his son was unfairly prosecuted in new court filings Tuesday night.
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi said that President Biden's statement announcing a full and unconditional pardon of his son stands “in tension with the case record” in Hunter Biden’s California proceedings.
President Biden asserted in the statement that “no reasonable person who looks at the facts of (Hunter Biden’s) case can reach any other conclusion than (Hunter Biden) was singled out because he is (the president’s) son.” But Scarsi, a Trump appointee, notes that two federal judges “expressly rejected” the younger Biden’s legal arguments that he was unfairly prosecuted.
“The President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges,” Scarsi wrote. “In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people.”
Scarsi further castigated President Biden for claiming his son “was treated differently” than others who paid their taxes late due to addiction, when in his guilty plea, Hunter Biden admitted he engaged in tax evasion after he regained sobriety.
“In short, a press release is not a pardon,” Scarsi wrote of the statement released by the White House Sunday night from Biden announcing the pardon. “The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
The judge said he would dispose of the case once he receives the official pardon from “the appropriate executive agency.” Meanwhile, he vacated Hunter Biden’s sentencing, which was scheduled for Dec. 16.
He also expressed concern over the pardon’s language, which granted clemency to Hunter Biden for his offenses against the country “during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” Because the pardon was issued before the day’s end, Scarsi questioned whether President Biden exceeded the scope of his presidential pardon power by granting relief for future offenses — even if just for a few hours.
However, the judge ultimately declined to interpret the warrant that way.
Hunter Biden in September pleaded guilty to all nine federal tax charges he faced, admitting he withheld at least $1.4 million in taxes over four years in the throes of his addiction to cocaine, spending it instead on a lavish lifestyle.
The stunning and last-minute twist staved off a second criminal trial this year just before it was set to begin. The younger Biden was found guilty in June of federal gun charges after a trial in Delaware.
On Sunday, President Biden wiped his son’s slate clean dating back to January 2014. He granted Hunter Biden a “full and unconditional pardon,” walking back previous vows to let his son’s conviction in the gun and tax cases remain.
In a statement announcing the pardon, Biden expressed belief in the justice system but said he also thinks “raw politics...infected” his son’s case.
“I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision,” Biden said.
Special counsel David Weiss refuted any assertion that politics swayed his prosecution of Hunter Biden, writing in court filings that “there was none and never has been any evidence of vindictive or selective prosecution in this case.”
Weiss opposed outright dismissal of the charges, instead suggesting the court should end all proceedings and close the case by merely reflecting a pardon as the final disposition. The difference appears largely procedural.
Weiss argued in both cases that the pardon does not absolve Hunter Biden of his guilt nor point to any defect in his indictment.
Hunter Biden’s guilty plea came together in the 11th-hour, after some 120 Californians were summoned to the Los Angeles federal court as prospective jurors in the case. The president’s son initially offered an arrangement called an “Alford plea” — where he would formally admit guilt while still maintaining his innocence and accept the judge’s eventual sentence — but prosecutors forcefully objected, prompting the traditional guilty plea.
The charges in his tax case carried up to 17 years in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines likely would have suggested a shorter sentence.
