Hunter Biden

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares169 Views

    Ex-FBI informant agrees to plead guilty to lying about Bidens’ Ukraine ties

    by

    A former FBI informant accused of falsely claiming that Joe Biden and the president’s son Hunter had accepted bribes has agreed to plead guilty to federal charges, according to court papers.As part of the plea deal with the justice department special counsel, David Weiss, Alexander Smirnov will admit he fabricated the story that became central to a Republican impeachment inquiry in Congress.The plea agreement comes just weeks after prosecutors filed new tax-evasion charges against Smirnov. The two sides will recommend a sentence of at least two years behind bars and no more than six years, according to the agreement.David Chesnoff and Richard Schonfeld, attorneys for Smirnov, said they will make their case for a fair sentence in court and declined to comment further.Smirnov was arrested in February on allegations that he falsely reported to the FBI in June 2020 that executives associated with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter Biden and Joe Biden $5m each in 2015 or 2016. Smirnov told his handler that an executive claimed to have hired Hunter Biden to “protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems”, according to court documents.Prosecutors said Smirnov had had contact with Burisma executives, but it had been routine and actually took place in 2017, after Barack Obama’s presidency and Biden, his vice-president, had left office – when Biden would have had no ability to influence US policy. Prosecutors said Smirnov made the bribery allegations after he “expressed bias” against Biden while the latter was a presidential candidate in 2020.Smirnov repeated some of the false claims when he was interviewed by FBI agents in September 2023, changed his story about others and “promoted a new false narrative after he said he met with Russian officials”, prosecutors said.Smirnov has agreed to plead guilty to charges of tax evasion and causing a false FBI record, according to court papers.Smirnov is being prosecuted by the same special counsel who brought federal gun and tax charges against Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden was supposed to have been sentenced this month on his convictions in those cases, until he was pardoned by his father. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      A pardon that proves power trumps all | Brief letters

      by

      There are plenty of people in the US justice system who suffer miscarriages of justice, who cannot afford good lawyers and who receive unnecessarily harsh sentences. By pardoning his son (Report, 2 December), Joe Biden has sent a message to the American people – and the world – that people close to those in power can get a better deal. This undermines the entire justice system and is an utter disgrace.Angela WrightLondon In your article (Four of UK’s oldest nuclear plants to run for even longer as Hinkley Point delayed, 4 December), we are told by Ed Miliband that these extensions are “a major win for our energy independence”. No, Ed – they are a major win for EDF, a French company on whom, this article asserts, we are 100% dependent for our nuclear energy.Rosemary MiddletonMiddle Taphouse, Cornwall There is an internet meme that sums up Mary Ann Sieghart’s article (Why do some men behave badly? I think I have the answer, 6 December) in 10 words, advising women and girls to: “Carry yourself with the confidence of a mediocre white man.” One of my younger feminist colleagues has even cross-stiched this great advice.Prof Rachel FysonUniversity of Nottingham You report (3 December) that the leader of Merthyr Tydfil county borough council says his team, officers at the council and external agencies will “move heaven and earth to ensure everything is put back into place” following the emergence of a sinkhole. Earth, yes, but is it really necessary to move heaven?Richard FosterThatcham, Berkshire If the government is allowing the British Museum freedom to decide on the fate of the Parthenon marbles (Report, 2 December) then the Greek authorities had better keep an eye on eBay.John Rushton Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden library reportedly under threat by Democrats enraged by Hunter pardon

      by

      Senior Democrats are reportedly considering withholding contributions to Joe Biden’s future presidential library amid a mounting backlash over his decision grant a blanket pardon to his son Hunter.The threat has emerged as simmering anger among congressional Democrats – already building over the president’s insistence on seeking a second term before belatedly stepping aside as the party nominee in favour of Kamala Harris – has burst into the open over Sunday’s pardon, which Biden had previously vowed not to give.Axios reported that party grandees were considering taking out their “rage” on Biden’s library project. Planning for the library, in the president’s home state of Delaware, is being spearheaded by the White House deputy chief of staff, Annie Tomasini, and Anthony Bernal, senior adviser to Jill Biden, the first lady.“If they had their shit together, they would have been doing the work on this over the summer – right after he announced he was stepping aside,” the site quoted one unnamed Democrat as saying. “Now, it’s just too late. Hopefully they are rightsizing their expectations and budget!”Presidential libraries – a tradition begun by Franklin D Roosevelt – are generally funded by a combination of private donors, state and local governments, and university partners. Maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration, they are used to house presidents’ papers and documents after they leave office.A source familiar with Biden’s project played down the possibility of donations being withheld, telling Axios: “That sentiment hasn’t come up in a single donor conversation, and work is well under way.”However, the fact that it is being publicly mooted is a sign of the internal party disenchantment following the pardoning of Hunter Biden, 54, who was convicted of lying on gun ownership application forms and separate charges of tax evasion. He had been due to be sentenced on both convictions this month. The act of clemency came less than a month after a demoralising election defeat that many privately blame Biden for.Biden, in his statement, said his son “was treated differently” than other people who had been late paying taxes because they were undergoing addiction problems. Biden pardoned his son for all possible offences committed between 2013 and 2024 – foreclosing the possibility of the incoming Trump administration reopening a case against the younger Biden that might be driven by the president-elect’s often-repeated desire for “retribution” against his political enemies.The judge in the tax case, Mark Scarsi, accused the president of “rewriting history” in a ruling penned after the pardon. He added that Hunter Biden’s tax offences had been committed after the period of his drug and alcohol addiction.A procession of Democratic senators and congressmembers have publicly accused Biden of putting his feelings for his son above the national interest and handing Donald Trump an excuse to abuse the presidential clemency powers.Even Chuck Schumer, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate and normally a loyal ally of the president, damned him with uncharacteristic reticence this week, telling reporters “I’ve got nothing for you on that” when asked his view.But party insiders say the outrage is a lightning rod for lingering resentment over Biden’s refusal to drop his bid for a second term until it was too late for Harris or other presidential contenders to be stress-tested in primaries and launch a well-prepared presidential campaign.“The pardon is simply a resentment delivery vehicle, like dressing on lettuce,” Philippe Reines, a veteran strategist who helped prepare Harris for September’s debate against Trump – which she was widely viewed to have won – told the New York Times.David Axelrod, a former adviser to Barack Obama, said the pardon gave “a free throw for people who think they can gain political advantage” from separating themselves from an unpopular, outgoing president.“But,” he added, “there’s also genuine concern and anger about the way the last year went down.” More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden could do so much good with pardons. Instead he bailed out his son | Tayo Bero

      by

      When Joe Biden announced on Sunday that he would be pardoning his son Hunter – who was facing sentencing in two federal criminal cases – he helped cement Donald Trump’s much-repeated argument that the American judicial system is rotten, politicized and in need of an overhaul.It’s a stupid refrain, but there are some heavy issues with Biden’s choice to do this now. What are we to make of the hypocrisy of a president who promised he’d “never interfere in the dealings of the justice department”, and swore even up until six weeks ago that he would not pardon his son? Or the fact that he just delivered Trump and the Republican party the kind of ammunition they need to justify pardoning, say, the orchestrators of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol? More morally troubling is that there’s a million other worthy causes that Biden could be using his pardon powers for.“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,” Biden said in his official statement on the pardon. He also called Hunter’s conviction a “miscarriage of justice”.Sure, there’s validity to Biden’s claims that Hunter was singled out because of who his father is: prosecutors rarely ever charge people for illegal gun possession while being addicted to a controlled substance unless there’s a violent crime involved, for instance, and many other people who are nicked on late tax charges are allowed to resolve things through the civil courts.But political witch-hunt or not, the optics of Biden letting his son cut in line are terrible when there are thousands of people languishing in federal prisons who deserve this consideration. From inmates sitting on federal death row charged with faulty evidence, to the Black and brown people serving long jail terms for drug offenses or nonviolent crimes, the inequities in the US justice system and who it punishes or rewards are far too grave and well-documented for Biden to have thought this was the right move.Trump has promised to accelerate mass deportations and to carry out a spree of executions including for drug offenses, and he is actively seeking to re-incarcerate thousands of people who were released into federal home confinement during the pandemic. Biden’s lack of foresight and judicial inaction on these issues becomes even more shameful in light of Hunter’s pardon.Still, presidential pardons have always been something of a political loot bag for outgoing presidents – a gift for friends and family to be handed out before the party ends. Bill Clinton used his to clear his half-brother of old cocaine charges, while Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, his son-in-law’s father, for tax evasion among other charges.But that’s just family. Let’s not forget that Trump also spent his first term doling out these pardons to his merry band of thieves and liars including Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. And it is that track record that makes the fallout from Biden’s pardon so frightening, because Trump has already begun hinting at the ways he plans to capitalize on the decision.“Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” Trump wrote on Truth Social after the announcement. “Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!”Meanwhile, Trump’s Republican buddies have already found ways to shoehorn this moment into a defense of Trump’s most egregious Senate picks. “Democrats can spare us the lectures about the rule of law when, say, President Trump nominates Pam Bondi and Kash Patel to clean up this corruption,” Tom Cotton, the Arkansas senator, wrote on X.More than anything, the Hunter pardon and its fallout are reflective of the sad and un-funny joke that has become US politics and governance. Next month, Trump will be the first convicted felon ever sworn in as president in American history, and he’s already lining up the get-out-of-jail-free cards for his criminal friends. The difference is that now, any time Trump is criticized for his use of pardon power, he will be able to argue that Biden used those same powers to protect his own son.

      Tayo Bero is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump’s legal team pushes for hush-money case to be dismissed – US politics live

      by

      The Trump transition team said it has entered a memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Justice.“This is the next step in the ongoing preparation of senior administration officials for the purpose of serving in President Trump’s administration,” the statement said. “This allows the transition team to submit names for background checks and security clearances.”The brief statement didn’t make clear whether the transition has given up on delaying or privatizing background checks for its cabinet nominees.Earlier, those familiar with the tram’s plans had indicated that Trump’s appointees would skirt full FBI vetting and delay receiving classified briefings until after Trump was sworn in.Trump’s lawyers had noted that the US justice department was poised to abandon Trump’s federal cases and referred to a departmental memo that bars prosecution of sitting presidents.“As in those cases, dismissal is necessary here,” their filing argued. “Just as a sitting president is completely immune from any criminal process, so too is President Trump as president-elect.”Special counsel prosecutors who were pursuing the federal cases against Trump indeed filed paperwork on 25 November asking for their dismissal – citing justice department policy that his team has repeatedly invoked.“It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting president,” wrote Molly Gaston, the top deputy for special counsel Jack Smith.“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind.”Manhattan prosecutors have argued against dismissal in prior court papers and have suggested a solution that would obviate any concerns about interrupting his presidency – including “deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term”.The dismissal pitch came after Judge Juan Merchan’s decision on 22 November to indefinitely postpone the president-elect’s sentencing so lawyers on both sides can argue over its future, given Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.While Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly pushed for dismissal to no avail, his impending return to the presidency has presented an opportunity for them to make their case once again.Merchan said in his postponement decision that Trump’s lawyers had a 2 December deadline to file their argument for dismissal. Prosecutors had a week to submit their response.Trump’s lawyers have been calling on Merchan to toss the case outright after he defeated Kamala Harris on 5 November. In previous papers seeking permission to file a formal dismissal request, Trump’s attorneys said that dismissal was required “in order to facilitate the orderly transition of executive power”.Todd Blanche, Trump’s main attorney and selection for deputy US attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, his choice for principal associate deputy attorney general, said that Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office “appears to not yet be ready to dismiss this politically motivated and fatally flawed case, which is what is mandated by the law and will happen as justice takes its course”.Donald Trump’s lawyers have asked a New York state judge to dismiss the criminal case against him, in which he was convicted of 34 felony counts involving hush money.Trump’s lawyers have argued that sentencing in the case would cause “unconstitutional impediments” to Trump’s ability to govern.The lawyers also cited Joe Biden’s sweeping pardon of his son Hunter Biden in their argument. The filing reads:
      Yesterday, in issuing a 10-year pardon to Hunter Biden that covers any and all crimes whether charged or uncharged, President Biden asserted that his son was ‘selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,’ and ‘treated differently.’
      President Biden argued that ‘raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.’ These comments amounted to an extraordinary condemnation of President Biden’s own DOJ.
      Already, Judge Juan Merchan has indefinitely postponed Trump’s sentencing.The Trump transition team said it has entered a memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Justice.“This is the next step in the ongoing preparation of senior administration officials for the purpose of serving in President Trump’s administration,” the statement said. “This allows the transition team to submit names for background checks and security clearances.”The brief statement didn’t make clear whether the transition has given up on delaying or privatizing background checks for its cabinet nominees.Earlier, those familiar with the tram’s plans had indicated that Trump’s appointees would skirt full FBI vetting and delay receiving classified briefings until after Trump was sworn in.Pete Hegseth, whom Donald Trump named as his pick to lead the defense department, had multiple affairs while married to his first wife, Vanity Fair reports.Such behavior could have violated military rules governing Hegseth, who served in the army national guard, and also strike another blow to his reputation as Republican senators consider whether he should lead the Pentagon. Other media outlets in recent days have reported on an accusation of sexual assault against Hegseth, which he denies, as well as claims that he abuses alcohol, mismanaged finances at two charities he was involved in and created a hostile environment for women.Here’s more, from Vanity Fair’s story:
      Hegseth and Schwarz’s young marriage was short-lived. In December 2008, Schwarz filed for divorce after Hegseth admitted that he cheated on her, according to four sources close to the couple. (APM Reports previously revealed that the infidelity was listed as grounds in the couple’s divorce proceedings.) The sources told me that Hegseth’s infidelity left Schwarz emotionally and psychologically scarred. ‘She was gaslighted by him heavily throughout their relationship,’ one of the sources told me. ‘As far as everyone else was concerned, they were viewed by many as this all-American power couple that were making big things for themselves.’ (Schwarz declined to comment. Hegseth’s lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, did not respond to a detailed list of questions for this story, and instead provided a statement that impugned my record as a reporter.)
      At the time Schwarz filed for divorce, Hegseth was dating Samantha Deering, whom he met while working in Washington, DC, at Vets for Freedom, a group that lobbied to maintain the military’s “counterinsurgency” strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2010, Hegseth married Deering, with whom he has three kids. In 2017, Deering filed for divorce after Hegseth fathered a child with his Fox News producer Jennifer Rauchet. Hegseth and Rauchet married in 2019 at Trump’s golf course in Colts Neck, New Jersey.
      Speaking of Kamala Harris, the Atlantic published a lengthy interview with four top players in the vice-president’s failed campaign for the White House, in which they discuss what went wrong.The general conclusion of the piece is that it would have been difficult for any Democrat to win, given how unhappy much of the United States was with Joe Biden’s leadership. But the president’s decision to end his bid for a second term just over three months before election day made it unlikely that Harris would be able to turn the situation around – and indeed, she was not able to.It also underscores that Democrats have work to do to win back voting blocs that once supported the party but appear to be defecting in increasing numbers to the GOP.From the piece:
      In a race shaped so profoundly by fundamental forces of disaffection with the country’s direction, could anything have changed the outcome? As the Democratic strategist Mike Podhorzer has argued, more voters might have ranked their hesitations about Trump higher if the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court had not blocked any chance that the former president would face a criminal trial before this election on the charges that he tried to subvert the previous one. Plouffe pointed to another what-if potentially big enough to have changed the result: Biden’s withdrawal from the race much earlier rather than only after his disastrous debate performance in June. If Biden had dropped out last winter, Plouffe argued to me, Democrats could have held a full-fledged primary that would have either produced a nominee more distant from his administration or strengthened Harris by requiring her to establish her independence. Looking back at what contributed to Trump’s victory, Plouffe said pointedly, Biden’s choice not to step aside sooner was ‘the cardinal sin.’
      Even so, Plouffe acknowledged, ‘I’m not sure, given the headwinds, any Democrat could have won.’ For all the difficulties that the atmosphere created for Harris, the election unquestionably raised warning signs for Democrats that extend beyond dissatisfaction with current conditions. It continued an erosion that is ominous for the party in its support among working-class nonwhite voters, particularly Latino men. And as Flaherty, the deputy campaign manager, told me, the Republican Party’s win powerfully demonstrated that it – or at least Trump himself – has built more effective mechanisms for communicating with infrequent voters, especially young men who don’t consume much conventional political news.
      Something Donald Trump might do once he takes office is pardon people convicted over the January 6 insurrection.Despite that, the justice department is continuing those prosecutions, and just announced that Matthew Brent Carver of Kentucky had pleaded guilty to a charge of “felony offense of obstruction of law enforcement during a civil disorder” in the attack that occurred nearly four years ago. Here’s what the department says Carver did:
      Around approximately 2:45 pm, law enforcement officers, including members of the U.S. Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)—who were performing their official duties at the Capitol on January 6—gathered and formed a police line towards the southern end of the Upper West Terrace. Several minutes later, around 2:47 pm, these officers moved in tandem towards the northern end of the Upper West Terrace in an effort to clear and secure the Upper West Terrace.
      As the officers advanced, they ordered protesters to “Move Back! Move Back!” while they attempted to secure the Upper West Terrace. Around 2:48 pm, as the police line approached the northern end of the Upper West Terrace, Carver emerged from the crowd, assumed an aggressive stance towards the approaching officers, and yelled, “Come on! Bring it!”
      Seconds later, Carver approached an MPD officer, grabbed the officer’s baton, and attempted to pull the baton away from the officer and, in doing so, also pulled the officer out of the police line and into the crowd of rioters. Carver was then pulled back into the crowd. Shortly afterward, the police line reformed and continued to push the protesters out of the Upper West Terrace, and Carver eventually made his way out of restricted permitter.
      The FBI arrested Carver on Jan. 30, 2024, in Kentucky.
      And a look at how many people have faced charges over the attack:
      In the 46 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,561 individuals have been charged in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 590 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, a felony. The investigation remains ongoing.
      Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and other top Democrats spent the past four years arguing to voters, unsuccessfully, that Donald Trump represents a unique threat to democracy and must never be put in power again.Speaking to Newsmax, Trump adviser Jason Miller turned their rhetoric on its head, by arguing that the incoming president will be good for democracy worldwide:
      Democracy is going to be in such better standing around the world, because you have to have a strong American presidency if you want to have strong democracy around the world, where you see peace in the Middle East, where you get the Russia-Ukraine conflict resolved. And finally, we’re going to get back to where we have peace and prosperity … for everybody.
      Speaking to the conservative Newsmax network, top Donald Trump adviser Jason Miller said that the incoming president will take aggressive actions over his first 100 days in office, including cracking down on migrants and spurring more oil and gas drilling.“President Trump is … moving really fast here. I mean, even by Thanksgiving, he had his entire cabinet picked,” Miller said. He said several top advisers including incoming White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and “border czar” Tom Homan “are putting together the executive orders and the policies. As President Trump said, we’re going to drill, baby, drill and secure the border – those will be day one priorities.”Miller continued:
      This first 100 days is going to be nonstop. There’s so many things that he’s ready to do. Because, again, we’ve never had a second-term president step in that is ready to go. In fact, we’ve never had a first-term president, never had president in history who’s so ready to go on day one, who knows exactly what they want to do. So, if you voted for President Trump, [you] should be pretty enthused that we’re gonna have the country back on track.
      As he wrapped up his speech on the outskirts of Angola’s capital, Luanda, a reporter asked Joe Biden for his comment on the declaration of martial law in South Korea.“I’m just getting briefed on it,” Biden replied.A spokesperson for the national security council said earlier that they were “seriously concerned” by the declaration, but Biden has not yet commented.As South Korea’s surprise martial law announcement sends shock waves across the country and beyond, another war abroad is also commanding the US’s attention, the Guardian’s Andrew Roth reports. Joe Biden is scrambling to “put Ukrainian forces in the strongest possible position” before Donald Trump, who has threatened to cut off all aid to Ukraine, assumes the highest level of office in the nation.The Biden administration is rushing military equipment to Ukraine in a last-ditch effort to shore up the country’s defenses against the Russian invasion before Donald Trump assumes the US presidency in January.The newly announced $725m in assistance will include Stinger anti-air missiles, anti-drone weapons, artillery shells and long-range Himars rocket munitions, and anti-armour missiles, as well as spare parts and other assistance to repair damaged equipment from US stocks, the state department said.The new shipments of weapons come as Ukraine is desperately seeking to stabilise its frontlines in both the east of the country, where Russia has made grinding progress toward the crucial logistics town of Pokrovsk, as well in the Kursk region of Russia, where Ukrainian forces are bracing themselves for an assault by Russian and North Korean troops.South Korea’s president, Yoon Suk Yeol, declared martial law today, and accused the country’s main opposition party of being anti-state, North Korea sympathizers.A spokesperson for the US national security council told CNN that the US was not given a warning from the South Korean president before he declared martial law.“We are seriously concerned by the developments we are seeing on the ground in the ROK [Republic of Korea].”The US state department’s principal deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said in a press conference today: “We are watching the recent developments in the ROK with grave concern. We are seeking to engage with our Republic of Korea counterparts at every level … This is an incredibly fluid situation.”You can read more about this development on our South Korea blog here.Donald Trump has reportedly offered the job of deputy secretary of defense to a billionaire investor whose firm has taken stakes in companies that do business with the Pentagon. Should Stephen Feinberg accept the nomination, it will be the latest to stir controversy, particularly among Democrats concerned that his nominees lack experience, have conflicts of interest or will pursue dangerous policies. Meanwhile, the fallout from Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter Biden continues. A Delaware federal judge cited the pardon in ending Hunter Biden’s prosecution on charges related to lying to buy a gun, while a top Trump adviser refused to say if the incoming president would opt to pardon himself of recently dismissed charges over allegedly hiding classified documents and plotting to overturn the 2020 election.Here’s what else has happened today:

      Chuck Schumer will continue to lead Democrats in the Senate after a close-door election by his colleagues. He will be the minority leader starting next year, when Republicans take control of the chamber.

      Traveling in Angola, Biden was asked about his decision to pardon his son. He refused to answer, and has not said anything else about the decision since making it public on Sunday evening.

      Democrats who might seek the presidency in 2028 did not want to share with Politico their views on Hunter Biden’s pardon. Party officials seeking to lead the Democratic National Committee were more talkative.
      Donald Trump has offered the post of deputy secretary of defense to Stephen Feinberg, the billionaire co-founder and CEO of investment firm Cerberus Capital Management, which has stakes in companies that do business with the military, the Washington Post reports.It is not clear if Feinberg accepted the job, the Post reports, and Trump has not yet publicly announced the nomination.Cerberus this year disclosed an investment in M1 Support Services, which provides military aircraft training and maintenance services. In 2018, Cerberus took a majority stake in Navistar Defense, which manufactures military vehicles.Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth will be back on Capitol Hill today, meeting with Republican senators who will consider his appointment.Politico reports that he is scheduled to meet Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Ted Budd of North Carolina and James Risch of Idaho. Hegseth will also probably run into plenty of reporters who will be asking about his drinking, treatment of women and financial management of two veterans non-profits he reportedly was forced out of.A judge has ordered an end to Hunter Biden’s prosecution on charges of lying about his drug use when buying a gun, after Joe Biden pardoned him on Sunday.Delaware federal judge Maryellen Noreika terminated the case against Hunter Biden in a decision issued today, after a jury found him guilty of three gun-related charges earlier this year. Biden was also pardoned of tax fraud charges leveled against him in California, which he pleaded guilty to. He was awaiting sentencing in both cases before the controversial presidential pardon.Here’s more about the gun case: More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Farmer styles need an illustrative update | Brief letters

      by

      The illustration published with John Harris’s column (1 December) showed a “typical” farmer hoping for a break in the (economic) clouds. Did he have to be from 1960s central casting? Flat cap, neckerchief, green wellies and chewing on straw? Leaning on a spade in an obviously ploughed field? Surely the Guardian doesn’t share the government’s archaic view of farmers.Ian StewartBrackley, Northamptonshire Simon Jenkins lauds that “thing of wonder”, the US constitution, which has “held the union together … for two and a half centuries” (Biden pardons his son, Trump will absolve his criminal allies. America shouldn’t stand for this, 2 December). Has the small matter of the civil war – southern secession, four years of armed conflict, over 600,000 dead and a divisive legacy – slipped his mind?Alan KnightEmeritus professor of history, Oxford University In his confession (‘Phantom gnome snatcher’ of Formby admits prank almost 50 years on, 26 November), the perpetrator said “I hope the statutes of limitations have passed on this one”. Did he mean statues?Joanna RimmerNewcastle upon Tyne Surely we need a “Middle-class woman of a certain age” mug from the Guardian, to sit proudly alongside a “Tofu-eating wokerati” one (As a middle-class woman of a certain age, all I can say is: ‘Thank you, Gregg Wallace’, 2 December)?Gabe CrispShoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex Was Gregg Wallace not “in a good headspace” when making his Instagram comments (Report, 2 December) because he couldn’t find one large enough to accommodate his ego?Paul McGilchrist Cromer, Norfolk More

    • 250 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      I understand why Joe Biden wants to protect his son Hunter. But it doesn’t make it right | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      ‘No one is above the law,” Joe Biden tweeted in May. He probably should have added a caveat to that because his own son appears to be floating far above the scales of justice. On Sunday the president issued a “full and unconditional” pardon to his middle child, Hunter, who was facing possible prison time for convictions on gun and tax charges. Biden and his spokespeople had previously insisted – at least seven times – that the president would not pardon his 54-year-old son and Donald Trump is, predictably, having a field day with the U-turn.A little background for those who haven’t been following the misadventures of Hunter Biden as closely as Republicans have. Despite the fact that, unlike Trump’s children, Hunter has never held a position in Biden’s administration, Republicans are obsessed with the man and have used his problems to attack the president. And Hunter has made this easy: he has a history of dubious business dealings and his struggles with addiction have led to numerous personal scandals that have been disgracefully weaponised. At one point, the Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene showed nude photos of Hunter engaged in sex acts to the House oversight committee.After years of legal and political scrutiny, Hunter pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges in September. He was accused of failing to pay $1.4m in taxes between 2016 and 2019, while court documents allege he was spending millions on “an extravagant lifestyle” including “escorts” and pornography. As well as the tax charges, Hunter was also found guilty in June of lying about his drug use while buying a gun in 2018. He was due for sentencing later this month, before daddy swooped in with a get-out-of-jail-free card.Pardoning friends and family isn’t unprecedented. Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother Roger Clinton and Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father, along with various associates. But that doesn’t mean we should dismiss Biden pardoning his son as a nothingburger, as many liberals appear keen to do. It doesn’t make Biden – who, again, insisted on multiple occasions that he wouldn’t pardon his son and who made respecting the rule of law a fundamental part of his brand – any less of a hypocrite. It doesn’t make this any less damaging for people’s trust in politicians and institutions.Biden, of course, doesn’t think of himself as a hypocrite. He has an excuse for his volte-face. One that sounds similarly like the excuses Trump has used to minimise his own legal troubles: he’s being persecuted! “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,” Biden wrote in a statement.To be fair, that’s partly true. Even some Republicans have admitted “the average American” without a history of violent crime probably wouldn’t have gone to trial for Hunter’s gun case. But that doesn’t make the man any less guilty.More broadly, it feels a little rich to complain about Hunter being persecuted for his name when Biden’s son has spent his entire life profiting from it. We’re not talking about some kid who was quietly trying to build his own life; we’re talking about a man who has consistently tried to squeeze as much money out of his connections to his dad as possible. Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine and China arguably went well beyond run-of-the-mill nepotism and raised serious questions about conflicts of interest. Then there are Hunter’s terrible paintings, which have miraculously sold to 10 buyers for a total of $1.5m in recent years.Look, I can certainly understand why Biden wants to protect his child. We all want to protect our children. But one thing Biden’s presidency and his enabling of what many experts have termed a genocide in Gaza has made clear, is that the law doesn’t protect all children equally. As I write this, the former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant – who has an active warrant for his arrest from the international criminal court (ICC) – is in New York before meeting with members of the Biden administration. His invitation to the US is essentially a middle finger to international law and the ICC from Biden, who has continuously shielded Israel from facing any sort of accountability. That’s a far bigger deal to me than Biden pardoning Hunter but it’s part of the same problem: a two-tiered justice system that routinely shields the powerful and punishes the powerless. Some people are born Hunters, others prey. Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Joe Biden pardoned his son – podcast

      by

      Joe Biden’s love for his family has long softened his public persona. From his grief at losing his first wife and daughter in a car crash, to the death of his son Beau, the tragedy he endured has been clear. And so has his obvious devotion to his second wife, Jill, and his remaining son, Hunter.It was in this light – as a doting father keen to protect his son – that the president hopes people will see his sudden decision to grant a pardon to Hunter for gun and federal tax offences. He was due to be sentenced this month. Hunter had become the first child of a sitting president to face a criminal trial and could have spent years in prison.Yet to many critics, Biden’s pardon is shocking. The president had repeatedly said he would not pardon his son, that he had faith in the institutions of justice, and he had positioned himself in his shortened election bid as someone who would uphold the rule of law. The Guardian’s US live editor, Chris Michael, explains why Biden may have changed his stance. And he tells Helen Pidd how the move could set a dangerous precedent on the cusp of Trump taking power. More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      What is a presidential pardon and how has it been used in the US?

      by

      Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his son Hunter on Sunday for any federal crimes “he committed or may have committed” between 1 January 2014 and 1 December 2024 has brought renewed focus on the expansive power the US constitution gives the president to grant official clemency.It’s a power that presidents have deployed since George Washington, who pardoned those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion, to Donald Trump, who pardoned his political allies.What is the pardon power?The presidential pardon power is explicitly outlined in the US constitution.Section 2 of article II says that the president has the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment”. The president’s power only applies to federal crimes, not state ones. It also does not apply to cases of impeachment.The founders took the pardon power from England, where there was a longstanding tradition of the king’s ability to issue mercy pardons. There was some debate about whether Congress should be required to give approval of pardons and whether there should be an exception for treason, but Alexander Hamilton pushed the constitutional convention to include a broad pardon power solely vested in the president. “As men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men,” he wrote in Federalist no 74, one of a series of essays to promote the ratification of the constitution.When it came to treason, he argued that the president could deploy the pardon power as a tool to negotiate and unify the country. “In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall,” he wrote.Bernadette Meyler, a law professor at Stanford University who studies British and US law, described it as “the one emergency power written into the constitution, other than the suspension of habeas corpus.“It’s one thing that is a concession to the idea that there might be certain unforeseen circumstances that the president would have to intervene in,” she said. “It goes along with the president’s control also over the army and navy and military power because, in the context that it was being contemplated, it was really being thought about as another tool within the ability to control domestic unrest.” How has the pardon power been used?George Washington issued the first pardons in 1795 to two men who were involved in the Whiskey Rebellion, a violent uprising in Pennsylvania to protest a tax on whiskey and other alcohol products by the nascent federal government.A key moment in the pardon power came after the civil war, when president Andrew Johnson issued “a full pardon and amnesty” to any person “who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion” during the civil war. This and similar pardons around the same time led the US supreme court to interpret the pardon power to allow the president to grant broad amnesty to a group of people and not just for specific crimes already committed, Meyler said.After Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in the 1970s after Watergate, Gerald Ford issued a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes.In 1977, Jimmy Carter issued a mass pardon for those who had dodged the draft for the Vietnam war. At the end of his term in 1992, George HW Bush pardoned six people involved in the Iran-Contra affair, including the former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger.In his last day in office in 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother and gave an extremely controversial pardon to Marc Rich, a fugitive convicted of financial crimes whose ex-wife had been a major donor to Democrats and the Clinton campaign. Barack Obama granted clemency to more than 1,700 people while in office, including hundreds who had been convicted of non-violent drug offenses.Who did Donald Trump pardon?Trump did not hesitate to use the pardon power during his presidency to help political allies. He pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law Jared. The elder Kushner had pleaded guilty years earlier to tax evasion and witness tampering (Trump has now tapped him to be ambassador to France).He pardoned his political adviser Steve Bannon, who faced charges of defrauding donors on a charity related to building a wall at the southern border. He also pardoned Paul Manafort, who served as a top official on his 2016 campaign, and Trump ally Roger Stone.Trump pardoned the former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik, the conservative personality Dinesh D’Souza, and Elliott Broidy, a major Republican donor. He also pardoned the rapper Lil Wayne and Alice Marie Johnson, a woman who had spent decades in prison for drug offenses but earned considerable attention after Kim Kardashian took on her cause.Trump has said he will issue a mass pardon for those involved in the January 6 attacks, a move that would end years of work by the justice department to investigate and criminally prosecute those involved in the attacks.Do other countries have a pardon power?The power to pardon is one that widely exists around the world, said Andrew Novak, a professor at George Mason University who is the author of Comparative Executive Clemency: The Constitutional Pardon Power and the Prerogative of Mercy in Global Perspective.But the United States is somewhat unique in allowing its chief executive the ability to pardon without having to get input or sign-off from others.“Biden can grant a pardon without input from anybody, which is much more of like a medieval English king conception of the pardon power, which is kind of ironic,” he added. “We have kind of an old-fashioned conception of the pardon power, at least generally.”“Having this unlimited pardon power that’s more similar to like 1700s England than it is to the current state of affairs in the western world,” he added. “In most countries in Europe, and the comparators in the developed world, they require input from someone else.” That requirement for input, Novak said, can somewhat limit a pardon being used to serve political or personal interests, the way it can be used in the US.Many countries also don’t allow for a pardon before conviction, Novak said, and there has been a movement over the last few decades in other countries for more transparency to ensure that proper processes are followed.About half of constitutions around the world limit the pardon power to something that can only occur after conviction, are only for specified offenses, or require an executive to consult others, Novak said. It’s uncommon for countries to have a ban on self-pardoning or pardoning a family member, he added.“Maybe it’s not common because the circumstance doesn’t arise very often,” he said. “The pardon power has always been a corruption risk going back to medieval times and can be used for many forms of self-dealing, like shielding one’s close associates or supporters.”The US founders understood impeachment to be an important check on the pardon power, Meyler said. “As we’ve seen it’s extremely hard to actually convict on an impeachment so that has proved to be really a fictional limitation on the president’s power.” More