A federal judge has delivered a scathing critique of President Joe Biden’s explanation for granting his son, Hunter Biden, a full and unconditional pardon. U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi accused the president of distorting the legal record in a case involving tax fraud and other charges, warning that while the Constitution grants pardon powers, it does not permit the president to “rewrite history.”
Judge Scarsi’s rebuke followed Hunter Biden’s legal team’s request to dismiss the California tax fraud charges based on the president’s December 1 pardon. Instead of submitting the certified pardon document, the attorneys initially cited a White House press release in which President Biden claimed his son had been “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted.”
The Judge Fires Back
In a five-page letter, Judge Scarsi highlighted discrepancies between the White House’s narrative and the legal record. He criticized the claim that Hunter Biden was treated differently because of his addiction, pointing out that Hunter’s tax evasion occurred after he had regained sobriety.
“Mr. Biden admitted he had sufficient funds to pay his taxes but chose to spend lavishly on personal expenses,” Judge Scarsi wrote. The court documents revealed expenditures on luxury clothing, escort services, and a Porsche while Hunter maintained an upscale lifestyle, including renting a $17,500-a-month home.
Scarsi also addressed the president’s assertion that Hunter was singled out because of their family connection. He reminded the public that multiple federal judges and prosecutors had dismissed claims of selective prosecution. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cases can conclude he was singled out only because he is the President’s son,” Scarsi wrote, paraphrasing and rejecting the White House’s statement.
A Polarizing Pardon
Hunter Biden had faced tax fraud charges over $1.4 million in unpaid taxes from 2016 to 2019. Prosecutors alleged he falsely claimed personal expenses as business deductions. His case also included a gun-related conviction, which was vacated in Delaware following the pardon.
Special Counsel David Weiss, who led the prosecution, also pushed back on claims of bias. “There never has been any evidence of vindictive or selective prosecution in this case,” Weiss stated, underscoring that courts appointed by presidents from both parties had found no merit in Hunter’s defense.
Historical Record Unchanged
Despite the pardon standing as a constitutional prerogative, Judge Scarsi made it clear that the narrative surrounding the case would not be rewritten. “The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons but nowhere does it give the President the authority to rewrite history,” Scarsi declared.
The White House has not responded to the judge’s remarks. The case will be formally closed once the certified pardon document is submitted. However, Judge Scarsi’s pointed criticism leaves lingering questions about the intersection of justice, politics, and presidential authority.