A Judge’s Comments on Hunter Biden’s Tax Case Sum Up the Biggest Problem With His Recent Pardon

President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter Biden – with years attached for personal reasons – still bothers me in a number of ways. Here’s a guy who went back on his promise not only to lawmakers but also to the American people. All for the sake of protecting his son’s hide, as well as his own.

But I think some recent comments provided by Federal District Judge Mark C. Scarsi really sum up the big problem with the pardon, which took place early last week.

Speaking with NBC News earlier in the week, Scarsi, who was also working on Biden’s then-tax case, believes that the pardon can serve as a major example of mischaracterization.

"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," Scarsi noted this past week.

Exactly. I think Biden clearly overstepped his territory for the sake of taking care of his family. It wasn’t so much about going against a promise he made, but really about defining his own level of justice.

In his statement via the White House, Biden said, “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. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here.”

But the fact that Biden would take Hunter – his own family – into consideration for this rule, instead of others, really hurts. I mean, why not give those who were unfairly convicted of the January 6^th “insurrection” this same level of belief? And for that matter, why not Donald Trump? 

Wouldn’t you want to bury the hatchet against someone you gave so much grief to over the past few years, especially with an unnecessary FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago? Apparently not.

Scarsi also went on to discuss the president’s “representations” with his decision. "For example, the President asserts that Mr. Biden 'was treated differently' from others 'who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions,' implying that Mr. Biden was among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction. But he is not.”

But this came after Biden pleaded guilty to the charges, hence taking away any need for any sort of pardon. He admitted his guilt, plain and simple.

But let’s keep going. Biden had noted his being a victim due to selective prosecution. However, both Scarsi and the judge in his Delaware case, Maryellen Noreika, believed otherwise. “Two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President. And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges. In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people."

Not to mention that David Weiss, who served on the special counsel that brought the cases against Biden to begin with, added that there “never has been any evidence of vindictive or selective prosecution in this case.” That brings us back to President Biden’s statement, insisting he was the subject of “unrelenting attacks.”

Talk about an inflated statement.

This just goes further to prove that the entire explanation by President Biden in that “statement” is merely a smokescreen. He granted it to protect not only his son, but also himself, particularly when it came to shady overseas partnerships with China and Ukraine.

“I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision,” Biden noted at the end of his statement.

We know why you came to this decision, Joe. But it has nothing to do with being a president in the least. Otherwise, you would’ve kept your promise to your people instead of worrying about protecting yourself and your family. Period.