To prioritize his own feelings
Tom Nichols on why Biden’s pardoning his worthless son is such a bad move.
President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter is a done deal. The president has not only obviated the existing cases against Hunter; the sweep of the pardon effectively immunizes his son against prosecution for all federal crimes he may have committed over the course of more than a decade. This pardon is a terrible idea—“both dishonorable and unwise,” in the words of the Bulwark editor Jonathan Last—and, as my colleague Jonathan Chait wrote yesterday, it reflected Biden’s choice “to prioritize his own feelings over the defense of his country.”
Obviously. Hunter Biden isn’t some random guy caught up in a mess, much less some good and useful guy victimized by others. He’s the pardoner’s son, and the pardoner is the head of state, and of course Joe Biden is putting his daddy feelz ahead of everyone else’s safety and ability to live in a country that’s not a putrefying swamp of corruption.
But it was also a tremendous strategic blunder, one that will haunt Democrats as they head into the first years of another Trump administration.
Why? Because it’s a “go right ahead” for all those wannabe overthrowers of the government to do it again.
But the Republican Party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Trump World, and had Biden not pardoned his son, elected Republicans at every level would have had to answer for Trump’s actions without reference to the Bidens. They would have had to say, on the record, whether they agreed with Trump letting people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted law-enforcement officers out of jail. Although Trump would have remained beyond the reach of the voters, the vulnerable Republicans running for reelection might have pleaded with him to avoid some of the more potentially disgusting pardons.
Forget all that. Joe Biden has now provided every Republican—and especially those running for Congress in 2026—with a ready-made heat shield against any criticism about Trump’s pardons, past or present. Biden has effectively neutralized pardons as a political issue, and even worse, he has inadvertently given power to Trump’s narrative about the unreliability of American institutions.
Nice work, Joe. Thanks a lot.
Biden has now hobbled an effective case that his own party could have made going into 2026, even against Trump. Most people understand corruption, and though they may not care about it very much, they don’t like it shoved in their faces. Some of Trump’s pardons could have been politically damaging to Republicans: Just over a week ago, a poll found that 64 percent of Americans would object to pardoning those convicted for January 6–related offenses.
But how do Democrats make that case now that Biden sounds so much like Trump when it comes to the justice system? Biden’s statement on the pardon had a kind of Trumpian, unspecific paranoia to it: “In trying to break Hunter,” the president stated, “they’ve tried to break me—and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”
Me me me – as if Joe Biden’s personal life were more important than the US falling off a cliff into wholly corrupt despotism.
There’s one option, at this point, but it won’t happen, sadly:
The Dems in the House and Senate should call for an impeachment trial against Biden during the lame-duck session for the abuse of the pardon power. Sure, it’s fairly late in the game, and wouldn’t actually change much, but it would establish the principle.
No, the GOP won’t honor that later on when Trump does the same. But the hypocrisy will be laid bare (unless the Republicans opt to not vote for impeachment, which would be funny–at least we’d get a bit of cabaret before things go completely to shit).
That same selfishness has been on display for more than a year already; having gotten Trump reelected with no legacy remaining that isn’t trashed, what incentive does he have to not look after one of the few people that doesn’t despise him? It’s bad for America but a bitter old man with nothing to live for has no reason to give a shit.
Agreed with Freemage, good way to stick the boot in after his other fuckups even if it won’t mean much.
I don’t agree on this one. The breakdown of the plea deal was a purely political act pressed by Republicans in congress for a campaign issue, and the only reason that this crime was brought out was because he was the president’s son. Yes, he is kind of a creep, but would never have been prosecuted if they hadn’t been digging to find anything, anything at all to use against Biden to prove he’s corrupt.
The thing about it is that, the past two Democratic presidencies have been scandal-free and this is the worst they could dig up, and I see no reason to treat him as a sacrificial lamb just so one scandal can stick. It seems that very little is gained in politics by “going high,” when Trump was out there pardoning Arpaio and other abusers of power.
Biden’s biggest blunder was running for re-election, not giving the Democrats enough time to develop a campaign with a different candidate who could separate from Biden’s unpopularity. We needed someone who had gone through the primaries but he prevented that.
Sure, the motives of the Republicans are their usual, but Hunter B really did exploit his Bidenhood to make a lot of money from a “job” he would never have had as Hunter Smith. It’s corrupt and skeevy.
I think that Biden is correct that the prosecution of Hunter Biden was a way of attacking him by going all in on hurting his son as much as possible, and far more so than would apply to other defendants. I think he’s correct to worry, as he surely does, that Trump will do even more to get at Biden through his son. I think Nichols is way too dismissive of what seems to me to be obvious truths.
The case against the pardon has to acknowledge this or else I think it’s premised on a falsehood. I do agree that conservatives will throw this in democrats faces for years while they engage in much worse self dealing. But I think Nichols needs to admit clearly that he would have liked Biden to leave his son to Trumps narcissistic vengeance for the good of the country, because I think that is what is being asked. And it’s a lot to ask of a father. Maybe he should have done it. But if Biden was obliged to do that I think we are obliged to speak truthfully about it.
Perhaps nobody would have raised a stink if he had been Hunter Smith, but if so, that’s a problem in itself. Authoritarian populists like Trump gain much of their support by portraying the establishment (the “swamp”) as hopelessly, irredeemably corrupt and self-dealing (and therefore in need of being “drained”), and one of the reasons it works so well is that it’s not entirely wrong. This is exactly kind of stuff that gives the likes of Trump credibility when trying to make it seem like all their opponents ever do is motivated by naked greed and self-interest. And, once again, when everyone is perceived (not entirely without justification) as a croock, the croock who wears it on his sleeve may ironically come across as as more “honest” than the ones who “pretend” to have some principles.
And of course, when dealing with someone as opportunistic and unscrupulous as Trump (or the party he now owns), how utterly stupid to put themselves in a position in which leaving Hunter “to Trumps narcissistic vengeance for the good of the country” or pardoning him, and handing Trump so much free ammunition, was ever a choice that had to be made in the first place. What the Hell did they expect?!
Patrick – Well sure, going after Hunter B is a way of going after Joe B, but the fact remains that Hunter B’s actions were disgustingly nepotistic if not corrupt, and Joe B should have told him not to do it at the outset. It’s not a matter of Joe B leaving his son to Trumps narcissistic vengeance for the good of the country, it’s a matter of Joe B not protecting his son from the result of his own blatant sleaze.
And the Trump side has argued that criminal charges and cases were only brought against him for political reasons, that these infractions would never have surfaced had Democrats not been digging to find anything, anything at all to use against Trump to knock him out of the race. The reasoning is identical. You can argue over whether one side is more or less correct in assessing associated reasons and likelihoods, but by doing so you implicitly grant the soundness of the principle that legal action brought for criminal acts is illegitimate if political motivation plays a significant part. (Or perhaps more generally, the legal action is illegitimate if the motivation for bringing it is illegitimate, where the legitimacy of motivation is independent of legal justification.)
I reject that principle entirely. In fact, I thought that rejection of the principle in favor of rule of law was the whole reason to scoff at Trump’s protestations of lawfare. If it wasn’t, um … Figuring out that entailment is something I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader.