Whether Biden Should Have Pardoned His Son

Was it Right or Wrong to Pardon: That is the Question

President Biden Should Have Pardoned His Son, Biden Hunter

President Biden now serves as a lame duck—a position often seen as having less influence on policy and fewer cares or concerns about what others may think about his policies or decisions. No longer beholden to voters, “they can make decisions that support their legacy despite the consequences (Lame Ducks: Presidents, Amendments, and Sessions: The Hidden Power of Being a Lame Duck, Kimberly Amadeo, ThoughtCo.com, August 21, 2020).” President Biden has approximately two months to make irreversible decisions. One of the decisions he was able to make without considering political repercussions concerns his son Hunter Biden. Several reasons substantiate the legitimacy of him pardoning Hunter, including grace and forgiveness, President-Elect Donald Trump’s de facto pardon by the nation, and the requirement for equal protection under the law--including equal treatment for felons;

First, let us look at grace and forgiveness. In short, grace, an undeserved favor—a free gift, cannot be earned. It is given out of love and not because one deserves it, according to Ephesians 2:8. As God extends grace to us whether we ask for it or not, we should extend that same grace to others in the same manner. Also, “according to the Supreme Court, the pardon power (granted in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution) is intended as a tool for justice and mercy (an “act of grace”) and to further the public welfare, The Presidential Pardon Power, Explained, " www.protectdemocracy.org, Justin Florence, March 18, 2024. President Biden and his wife often expressed their unconditional love for their son after his conviction.

“Jill and I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today.” …. “Biden Shows Support for Son Hunter After Conviction, Says He Will Respect Verdict,” ABC news, Alexandra Hutzler, June 11, 2024”.

Again, President Biden serves as a lame duck, he has authority to use his unchecked power of the presidential pardon to extend the grace of a pardon to his son not for any other reason than his love for his son. If we all tell the truth, how many of us would not have exercised this same power for our own children?

Second, on election day, Trump received a de facto pardon from voters when he won the 2024 Presidential election. He will avoid prosecution for his 3 remaining federal cases, although based upon allegations he committed crimes involving far more serious offenses than Hunter Biden committed, including undermining the results of a fair and free election and assembling false slates of electors, among others. He will not avoid prosecution because the federal crimes brought against him by the Justice Department, will be dismissed remain before he assumes the office of President on January 20, 2025.In addition, Trump will select a Justice Department that is loyal to him, which means he any remaining or potential cases pending with the Justice Department will “go away.” Since President Biden remains in office, he did the right thing by using his presidential pardon power to make Hunter Biden’s criminal conviction “go away.” I agree with Anna Navarro (who is a Republican and never-Trumper) of ABC’s The View, when she states:

“And this is what I’m going to tell Joe-Joe, since they’re talking smack about you anyways, you know what? Maybe pardon Hunter,” she said. Pardon Hunter because we, basically America just pardoned a criminal who was convicted of felonies, Ana Navarro says Biden should pardon his son,” The Hill, Joanne Haner, November 11, 2024”.

Third, both Trump and Hunter Biden have committed felonies and should receive equal treatment under the law. This rubric of our judicial system, generally based upon the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” On May 30, 2024, a state court in New York convicted Trump for falsifying business records. Trump remains under indictment for 3 federal felonies. Contrarily, Hunter Biden’s convictions relate to tax offenses. If Trump does not have to answer for his crimes, why should Hunter Biden have to answer for his? This reasoning does sound immoral, but in my opinion (Ms. Cato Miller), Trump has no morals. His transactional approach to everything suggests he only cares about himself. He shows no concern for the greater good unless it benefits him. Therefore, although out of character for President Biden (because he previously expressed he would not pardon Hunter), he should have pardoned him. Perhaps President Bident remembered the adage, “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.” Look at it this way, his treatment of Hunter Biden equates to the way the Supreme Court of the United States treated Trump when it, in effect, ruled to give Trump immunity from all his criminal conduct while serving as president.

In summary, President Biden made the right decision when he pardoned his son Biden Hunter for at least the 3 reasons discussed herein. The circumstances surrounding his decision to pardon, although difficult for him, demanded that he do so in this case. Unlike Trump, we know that President Biden respects the law, the separation of powers, and the Constitution. The President has already exercised this special power to pardon others. Why should he not have extended it to his son? This Constitution granted him this unilateral power and he used it accordingly.

Why President Biden Should Not Have Pardoned His Son

While we have explored numerous reasons to justify President Biden pardoning his son, we must consider the substantial reasons opposing his decision to pardon him. First, the President maintains an image as a man of character. President Biden holds the respect of the majority of citizens of the United States and leaders around the world for his integrity and truthfulness. He said he would not pardon his son and he should have honored his word. Otherwise, the respect he has gained over his 50 years of public service now lies tainted by the stain of this impropriety. In addition, some now question his profession as a devout Catholic and man of faith, who acknowledged Jesus Christ as his Savior. Failing to honor his promise to respect the rule of law seems contrary to this assertion. Though it pained him to see his son suffering, his word as a righteous man should have far outweighed his emotional attachment to his son when balancing the opposing concerns.

Second, the President had an opportunity to provide a higher example. Countless people, both young and old, observing his actions, now view him as considering it acceptable to allow his son to break the law. His decision could influence an entire generation by validating the appropriateness of a leader pardoning someone who behaved badly based upon their relationship with them. Whereas he chose not to uphold the highest standards of justice by requiring his son to honor the consequences of his actions ass President, he can now be seen as having failed to uphold his duty to the nation and those who still hold the office of the President as worthy of one who respects the law and the U.S. Constitution above personal gain. He demonstrated a willingness to honor the law in the past, along with displaying an appreciation of the significance of his decorum. Using his office for self-appeasement or to curry favor for his son sends the wrong message to those witnessing his governance. Unfortunately, he did not set an exemplary standard for future presidents and other officials to emulate in generations to come by refusing to avoid the appearance of abusing the presidential power to pardon his son.

Third, God has a merciful nature and as noted in Psalm 103:10, He does not treat us as our sins deserve. He forgives the misdeeds of those who place trust in His Son. Ephesians 4:32 tells us, “in Christ God forgave you.” Even still, He holds us accountable to answer for our failures. For example, when David sinned by abusing his authority towards and committing adultery with Bathsheba, God did not exact the full punishment for his behavior or the related murder he commissioned. According to Leviticus 20:10, David earned the penalty of death. Yet, God spared his life. However, David still suffered for his sin. The child conceived by Bathsheba as the fruit of his misfeasance died. Likewise, President Biden’s son violated the law and should suffer the consequences no matter how small the violation.

In sum, President Biden faced a consequential decision that may define his legacy far more than his decades of service, supplanting the multitudes of good deeds he accomplished. His impudent act of pardoning his son sent shockwaves around the globe. Some view it as equitable, or his just reward in light of the historical context, while others consider the event as marking a sad day for our democracy.

Rev. Lettie Carr, Esq., a graduate of Smith College and the University of Michigan Law School, serves as an Associate Pastor at First Baptist Church of Glenarden International, founder of Whosever Believes Ministries.

Annette Cato Miller, Esq. a graduate of Smith College and the University of Houston Law School, a partner at the Law firm of Cato-Miller, Derenburg & Associates, has practiced law for 40 years.