2 weeks Ago By Althea Legaspi
Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.
) has weighed in on President Joe Biden offering a blanket pardon to his son Hunter Biden , shielding him from criminal gun and tax charges. The soon-to-be-retired independent, who caucuses with the Democrats, was not overly critical of the move by the president, who had previously pledged not to pardon his son — but he did offer one unusual idea. “As a father, I don’t know of a father that wouldn’t have done the same thing,” Manchin told CNN .
“What I would have done differently, my recommendations as a counsel would have been, why don’t you go ahead and pardon Donald Trump for all his charges?” He argued that the move would have would have “gone down a lot, lot more balanced, if you will,” adding: “I’m just saying wipe them out.” On Sunday, Biden announced that he had signed a pardon for his son. “Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter,” Biden wrote in a statement.
“From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted.” Hunter Biden was convicted earlier this year on federal gun charges, and later pleaded guilty to federal tax charges. The president told David Muir of ABC News in June that he would not pardon his son for his conviction, responding “yes” when asked if he would rule out a pardon.
He reiterated that stance shortly afterward. “I will not pardon him,” he said while speaking at an event a week after his interview with Muir. Trump doesn’t exactly need a pardon from Biden in order to escape legal trouble — his 2024 election win likely already ensured that.
It has long been the Justice Department’s policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. Last week, Special Counsel Jack Smith announced he was dropping his criminal election interference and classified documents cases against the president-elect, based on the Justice Department policy. Smith wrote that the department’s Office of Legal Counsel determined that its “prior opinions concerning the Constitution’s prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting president apply to this situation and that as a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated.
”.
