A parent’s pardon: Joe Biden’s precedent-setting move magnifies power of the presidency
Joe Biden is drawing condemnation from political allies for establishing a new precedent in American history with the first-ever pardon for presidential offspring.
And all they can do, really, is complain.
Because the president’s blanket pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, last weekend highlights the expansive power of the U.S. presidency and it may only be growing.
There’s virtually nothing Congress can do to limit the power of the pardon, reaffirmed in multiple Supreme Court decisions over the generations.
In 1866 and 1871, the high court ruled Congress cannot undo a pardon; in 1974, it ruled Congress cannot modify, abridge or diminish the power, enshrined in the Constitution.
What about amending the Constitution? Fat chance of that. It requires three-quarters of the states, and potentially a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.
This is coupled with a new Supreme Court decision that makes it even harder to charge a president over acts committed while in office, or even to collect evidence for a trial.
U.S. President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, shielding him from prison over federal felony gun and tax convictions, despite previous promises to avoid using presidential powers for family benefit.
One of the country’s founders, George Mason, feared that the pardon power could destroy the American republic and re-establish a monarchy.
And now an incoming president who’s already been accused of being a repeat abuser of the pardon power is about to take office.
In his first term, Donald Trump pardoned several friends, political allies, people who agreed not to testify against him, and his nominee for the next ambassador to France: Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law.
For his second term, Trump has already said he’ll pardon supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; he’s now indicating he’ll use the Hunter Biden pardon as an excuse.
A number of Democrats expressed alarm Monday that Biden’s move will only complicate their own future efforts to call out Trump’s abuses.
“President Biden’s decision to pardon his son was wrong,” Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat, said in a post on social media platform X.
“This was an improper use of power, it erodes trust in our government, and it emboldens others to bend justice to suit their interests.”
There were a number of such laments from Capitol Hill.
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said the president put personal interest above duty and further erodes public faith in the justice system.
One congressman, Greg Landsman, said: “As a father, I get it.” But as someone who wants to restore public faith in government, he called it a setback.
Biden has defenders, too
Not everyone was so critical.
Some of Biden’s defenders were more brazen than others. One congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett, actually congratulated Biden.
“Way to go, Joe,” Crockett, a former public defender, said on MSNBC. She called the case against Hunter Biden driven by politics and said the president had done the right thing.
In a sweeping U.S. presidential act before his term is up next month, Joe Biden has pardoned his son Hunter Biden, after previously claiming he would not do so. Andrew Chang breaks down the pardon, which covers any criminal act Hunter may have committed in the last 10 years, and explains why the president changed course.
She also lamented that a convicted criminal is about to become president and added: “For anyone that wants to clutch their pearls now … I would say take a look in the mirror.”
In an interview with CBC News, a former federal prosecutor, and frequent Trump critic, took a more measured approach.
When asked whether Biden’s pardon was unethical, or hypocritical, given how often the White House denied it would happen, Nick Akerman essentially concurred.
“I can’t disagree with that at all,” Akerman, a former New York prosecutor who worked on the Watergate case, told CBC News Network.
But he added that he can’t fault Biden, either.
He said the incoming president has repeatedly indicated that he plans to punish political enemies; Trump has also placed hardcore partisans in key justice roles.
“I think it’s a legitimate [concern],” Akerman said.
“If you had your kid who was going to go through the federal prison system, and you knew it was going to be run by political hacks who have promised retribution against Donald Trump’s enemies, I don’t know how many people wouldn’t do the same thing under these circumstances.”
Controversial uses of pardon power
Akerman called Trump the biggest abuser of the pardon system so far.
Previously, Bill Clinton was criticized for pardoning his half-brother, Roger, on his last day in office, for old cocaine-distribution convictions, along with a wealthy donor.
Other controversial uses of the power include pardons of former Confederates after the Civil War and the amnesty granted to former president Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal.
Constitutional scholar UCLA’s Jon Michaels, interviewed by CBC News, shared Akerman’s assessment, summing up his mixed feelings this way: “Is it a healthy way to run a country? No — but we’re not in a particularly healthy moment as a country.”
This first-ever paternal pardon involves Hunter Biden’s conviction on taxes which were paid late. He also illegally owned a gun for 11 days, after lying on a mandatory form about his past drug use. He was convicted this year and faced a potentially long sentence.
In explaining the pardon, Biden said these sorts of charges are almost never brought, and would not have been prosecuted here if not for the political pressure.
“It is clear that Hunter was treated differently,” the president explained.
“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 … Enough is enough.”
What Hunter Biden was — and wasn’t — charged with
Republicans have long insisted there’s a more complicated story that could have resulted in additional charges and more awkward questions for the Biden family.
Hunter Biden never registered as a foreign agent, despite receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Chinese, Romanian and Ukrainian entities, in part to help make introductions for his clients to American officials.
Depending on where you land on the political spectrum, the controversy involving U.S. President Joe Biden’s son Hunter is either one of the greatest corruption scandals in American history or a right-wing partisan joke. CBC’s Alex Panetta breaks down what we know, what we don’t and what’s next.
At a contentious court hearing last year, a judge asked if Biden could, potentially, still be charged for being an unregistered foreign agent.
This set off a heated exchange between Biden’s lawyers and the prosecution. That exchange resulted in an earlier plea deal falling apart.
Trump publicly laced into the deal, criticizing the prosecutor, whom he himself had appointed, and called him a coward.
Prosecutors later added new gun charges, for which Hunter Biden was convicted this year, and was awaiting his sentence.
That all ended Sunday. In an unusually broad pardon, his father absolved him of any federal crime he might have committed, from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024.
Some legal writers have argued that a commutation might have been fair — meaning amnesty from a prison penalty.
But that wouldn’t have protected Hunter Biden from any additional prosecution over any past federal charges; this will.
Though the president has his defenders, the prevailing reaction in Washington was summed up in a column by Politico’s head of news, titled, “Joe Biden’s Parting Insult.”
“Voters now know what his word as a Biden is worth,” said the piece, which criticized the president for breaking his no-pardon promise.
“Biden is exiting a presidency that he insisted was about saving democracy by delivering an ostentatious vote of no confidence in the institutions that his successor most obviously intends to attack.”
Published at Tue, 03 Dec 2024 09:00:41 +0000
What just happened in Aleppo, and what it means for Syria’s civil war
Opposition forces seeking to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad launched their biggest offensive in years last week, retaking the northern city of Aleppo and driving government forces out of the region.
It was the first significant development in years in Syria’s grinding civil war, which after almost 14 years had largely fallen from the world’s headlines. It also raises fresh questions about the opposing sides, who supports them, and what might happen next. Here’s what we know:
What happened in Aleppo?
Syrian rebels launched a two-pronged offensive on Aleppo last week, gaining control of the country’s second largest city amid little resistance from government troops, according to residents and fighters.
The insurgents are a coalition of Turkey-backed mainstream secular groups spearheaded by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an Islamist group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and United Nations.
The rebels have since pressed their advance to the south and southwest of Aleppo, capturing territory in Hama province and moving into the countryside around Idlib.
Syria carried out airstrikes targeting the rebel forces that seized the country’s second largest city of Aleppo in a surprise advance last week that caught the government off guard.
Which rebel groups are involved?
HTS, formerly known as the Nusra Front, was al-Qaeda’s official wing in the Syrian war but the groups broke ties in 2016.
Another rebel group — the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, the internationally recognized Syrian opposition — launched a separate offensive from north of Idlib. It represents anti-Assad groups including the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army or Free Syrian Army.
Why now?
The assault followed the recent ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, ending more than a year of fighting that started shortly after Israel went to war with Hamas in Gaza.
Hadi al-Bahra, president of the National Coalition, says rebels began preparing to seize Aleppo a year ago but were delayed by the Israel-Hamas war.
“The moment there was a ceasefire in Lebanon, they found that opportunity… to start,” he said.
Earlier this year, Israeli airstrikes in Aleppo hit both Hezbollah weapons depots and Syrian government forces, among other targets, according to an independent monitoring group. Israel rarely acknowledges strikes against Aleppo or other government-held areas of Syria.
Iran which, like Hezbollah, supports the regime, has also been weakened by recent Israeli airstrikes.
Russia — Assad’s main international backer — is meanwhile preoccupied with its war in Ukraine.
A Russian airstrike at the Aleppo University Hospital in Syria killed at least 12 people and injured more than 20 others. The bombardment, in support of Syrian government forces, followed insurgents seizing control of Aleppo, the country’s largest city.
Why Aleppo is significant
Aleppo, an ancient centre of commerce and culture in the Middle East, was home to 2.3 million people before the war. Rebels seized the east side of the embattled city in 2012, and it became the proudest symbol of the advance of armed opposition factions, but changed hands again when a brutal air campaign by Russia helped al-Assad retake the city.
Intervention by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and other groups did much to keep Assad in power, who now has 70 per cent of Syria under his control. The rest is held by a range of opposition forces and foreign troops.
This latest change “has the potential to be really quite, quite consequential and potentially game-changing,” if Syrian government forces can’t hold their ground, said Charles Lister, a longtime Syria analyst with the U.S.-based Middle East Institute.
Which countries are involved?
Syria is split into three regions: each controlled by either the Assad regime, opposition forces or the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led coalition of U.S.-backed ethnic militias and rebel groups opposed by Turkey.
Russia and Iran have sway over government-held areas, the single biggest chunk of Syria. The U.S. has forces in the northeast and east, backing the Syrian Democratic Forces. Turkey has troops in the rebel-held northwest.
The Syrian army said on Saturday dozens of its soldiers had been killed in a major attack by rebels who swept into the city of Aleppo, forcing the army to redeploy in the biggest challenge to President Bashar al-Assad in years.
Hezbollah, the regime’s third main supporter, does not currently intend to send fighters to northern Syria to support Assad, according to sources who spoke to Reuters.
Turkish forces have previously attacked northeast Syria, wanting to eliminate one of its main concerns on its borders: Kurdish-led groups.
Iran has pledged to aid the Syrian government and on Monday hundreds of fighters from Tehran-backed Iraqi militias crossed into Syria to help fight the rebels, Syrian and Iraqi sources said.
What happens now?
Syria’s government has scrambled its forces to push back the offensive, with help from Russia. Both the government and Russia have been rushing reinforcements and striking rebel-held areas as they attempt to stall the opposition’s momentum.
Airstrikes pummelled Idlib in northwestern Syria on Monday, killing at least a dozen civilians including children, according to the White Helmets, a volunteer rescue group also known as Syrian Civil Defence.
At least 44 civilians, including 12 children and seven women, were killed in northwest Syria from Tuesday to Saturday, according to the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
OCHA added that over 48,500 people had been displaced, with key infrastructure — including hospitals, schools and water stations — damaged in the escalating hostilities.
The United Nations has described the situation in Aleppo as “volatile and unpredictable.”
“The latest developments pose severe risks to civilians and have serious implications for regional and international peace and security,” said UN Syria envoy Geir O. Pedersen in a statement.
Published at Tue, 03 Dec 2024 01:04:24 +0000
