The federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden's tax case slammed the president's claims that his son was unfairly prosecuted in a new court filing Tuesday night.
U.S. District Judge Mark Scalsi said: President Biden's statement Announcing full and unconditional pardon for son “in tension with case record” in Hunter Biden's California legal proceedings.
“No reasonable person considering the facts of (Hunter Biden's) case would reach any conclusion other than that (Hunter Biden) was chosen because he is (the President's) son,” President Biden said in a statement. “I can't do that,” he argued. But Scalsi, a Trump appointee, noted that two federal judges had “unequivocally rejected” the younger Biden's legal claims that he had been unfairly prosecuted.
“The president's own attorney general and Justice Department officials oversaw the investigation that led to the indictment,” Scalci wrote. “In the President's assessment, this corps of federal civil servants, including the undersigned, are unreasonable people.”
Scalsi also said that when Hunter Biden admitted in his guilty plea that he evaded taxes after regaining sobriety, his son was “treated differently” than other addicts who paid taxes. President Biden was criticized for claiming that he had received the same.
“In short, a press release is not a pardon,” Scarci wrote of the White House's statement Sunday night announcing Biden's pardon. “While the Constitution gives the president broad powers to grant reprieves and pardons for crimes against the United States, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the president the power to rewrite history.”
The judge said he would dispose of the case as soon as he received a formal pardon from the “appropriate executive authority.” Meanwhile, he canceled Hunter Biden's sentencing, which was scheduled for Dec. 16.
He also expressed concern about the language of the pardon, which provides clemency for Hunter Biden's crimes against the nation “from January 1, 2014 to December 1, 2024.” Because the pardon was issued before the day was over, Scalci questioned whether President Biden exceeded the scope of his presidential pardon authority by granting relief for future crimes even for a few hours. did.
However, the judge ultimately refused to interpret the warrant that way.
Hunter Biden was found guilty in September of all nine federal tax charges he faced, admitting in September that he withheld at least $1.4 million in taxes over four years in the throes of a cocaine addiction and spent it instead on a lavish lifestyle. admitted.
In an astonishing last-minute development, the second criminal trial of the year was thwarted just before it was due to begin. The younger Biden was convicted on federal gun charges in June after a trial in Delaware.
On Sunday, President Biden cleared his son of any charges dating back to January 2014. He authorized Hunter Biden to: “Complete and unconditional pardon” He rescinded previous vows to uphold his son's convictions in gun and tax cases.
In a statement announcing the pardon, Biden expressed faith in the justice system, but also said he believed “raw politics influenced my son's case.”
“I hope the American people understand why my father and my president are making this decision,” Biden said.
Special Counsel David Weiss refuted claims that Hunter Biden's prosecution was influenced by politics. write in court filings “There is and has never been any evidence of retaliatory or selective prosecution in this case.”
Mr. Weiss opposed dismissing the charges outright and suggested instead that the court conclude the case by completing all proceedings and simply reflect the pardon as a final disposition. The difference seems to be mainly in the steps.
Weiss argued in both cases that the pardon does not exonerate Hunter Biden or point to flaws in the indictment.
Hunter Biden's guilty plea was finalized in the 11th hour after about 120 Californians were summoned to a Los Angeles federal courthouse as potential jurors in the case. The president's son initially proposed an arrangement known as an “Alford plea,” in which he would maintain his innocence but formally plead guilty and accept the judge's final verdict, but prosecutors forced him to object, so the traditional A guilty plea was entered.
His tax case charges carried a maximum sentence of 17 years in prison, but federal sentencing guidelines likely suggested a shorter sentence.
