Connect with us

News

Biden isn't the first president to pardon a relative. Here's how the power works

Published

on

Biden isn't the first president to pardon a relative. Here's how the power works

President Biden and Hunter Biden, pictured in Nantucket, Mass., on Friday. Days later Biden announced he had pardoned his son, who was awaiting sentencing in criminal cases related to tax evasion and gun charges.

Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

The topic of presidential pardons is back in the spotlight this week after President Biden announced he signed a “full and unconditional” one for his son.

Hunter Biden was convicted earlier this year of federal gun charges for lying about his addiction to crack cocaine when he purchased a gun, and separately pleaded guilty to tax offenses for failing to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes. Sentences in both cases were scheduled to be handed down later this month.

The president has said publicly that he would not pardon his son — but reversed that promise in an announcement on Sunday in which he called the prosecution unfair and selective.

Advertisement

Biden blamed his opponents in Congress for instigating the charges against Hunter and unraveling his would-be plea deal through political pressure, though the special counsel leading the firearm probe has denied facing political interference.

In his statement, Biden said, “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.”

“I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice,” Biden added. “I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.”

Biden’s decision was met with criticism from both sides of the aisle.

For one, his rationale closely echoes Donald Trump’s claims of a politicized Justice Department — even though the charges against Hunter Biden and Trump, the first president to be convicted of a felony, are very different. Trump was charged with trying to overturn the 2020 election and endangering national security through his handling of classified documents, though both cases were dismissed after his 2024 election victory.

Advertisement

Trump was quick to slam Biden’s pardon as an “abuse and miscarriage of Justice.” Even some Democrats — including Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Arizona Rep. Greg Stanton and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet— publicly denounced Biden’s decision. They warned it could set a dangerous precedent, especially before the return of Trump, who has vowed to pardon Jan. 6 rioters and baselessly suggested he could even pardon himself.

“Joe Biden put self before country, and just pardoned his son,” tweeted Joe Walsh, an anti-Trump former Republican congressman who had endorsed Biden. “And that selfishness took the ‘no one is above the law’ argument against Trump off the table.”

Presidential pardons have been commonplace since the days of George Washington, who forgave the two men convicted of treason for their role in the Whiskey Rebellion. Over the years, many have been cause for celebration as well as controversy.

What is a pardon?

Presidential pardon authority is inspired by early English law, which granted kings “the prerogative of mercy.”

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the president the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Advertisement

“The U.S. Constitution grants the president of the United States what’s called unilateral clemency power,” explains Lauren-Brooke Eisen, the senior director of the Brennan Center’s Justice Program. “And you can think of clemency as the umbrella term.”

Acts of clemency include granting amnesty, reprieves, commutations, and pardons — the most expansive form of relief.

A full pardon releases the person from punishment and restores their civil liberties, including their right to vote, hold office and sit on a jury.

“Clemency really is an expression of mercy, and often tempers the very overly punitive, harsh, inequitable results that our criminal justice system produces,” says Eisen.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the president’s pardoning powers as relatively broad, “extending to ‘every offence known to the law’ and available ‘at any time after [a crime’s] commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment,’ ” according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Advertisement

In some rare cases, presidents have even pardoned individuals who had not been charged with a crime: Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal, and Jimmy Carter pardoned most Vietnam War draft dodgers, both charged and uncharged.

The only limits — at least according to the Constitution — are that a president can only grant pardons for federal criminal offenses, not state or civil offenses, and cannot issue pardons in cases of impeachment.

How have pardons typically been used?

President Gerald Ford (L) talks at a podium as President Richard Nixon (R) stands nearby.

President Gerald Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon shortly after taking office in 1974, to which many historians attribute his election defeat two years later.

AFP/AFP via Getty Images/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

AFP/AFP via Getty Images/AFP via Getty Images

Presidents have pardoned all sorts of federal offenses, from marijuana possession to mail fraud to murder. Somewhere along the way, they even started pardoning Thanksgiving turkeys to spare them from the dinner table.

Some pardons have involved high-profile figures: Andrew Johnson pardoned a doctor who treated John Wilkes Booth’s broken leg after he assassinated Abraham Lincoln, as well as thousands of Confederate soldiers and officials after the Civil War.

Advertisement

Warren Harding pardoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs after he was sentenced to a decade in prison for speaking out against World War I. Richard Nixon pardoned Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa during his 15-year prison sentence for jury tampering and fraud.

More recently, over 3,000 acts of clemency were granted in the four decades between the start of the Ronald Reagan and end of the Barack Obama administrations, according to the White House Historical Association.

But the number of pardons has varied widely between presidents.

Obama granted the most clemency actions — 1,927, of which 212 were pardons — of two-term presidents since the mid-20th century, according to the Pew Research Center. George W. Bush issued the fewest — 200, including 189 pardons.

Advertisement

Trump granted 237 acts of clemency during his first term, including 143 pardons and 94 commutations. His use of the power was relatively rare compared to many of his predecessors, but highly controversial because most of the people he helped had some sort of personal or political connection to him.

Have presidents pardoned relatives before?

Biden is now the third president to pardon a relative.

On his last day in office in 2001, President Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, Roger, who had pleaded guilty and spent a year in jail on drug charges.

That was one of a whopping 140 pardons that Clinton issued that day, and not the most controversial.

He got much more flack for pardoning Marc Rich, a disgraced financier who had fled to Switzerland after being indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, among other charges. Rich’s ex-wife Denise had donated over $1 million to Democrats and Clinton’s presidential library, raising questions and a Justice Department investigation into the pardon, which ultimately found no wrongdoing by Clinton.

Advertisement

Trump also issued a flurry of pardons — 74, to be exact — in the final hours of his first term, with recipients including his former chief strategist Steve Bannon, rapper Lil Wayne and Al Pirro, the former husband of Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro.

He had previously pardoned many other members of his inner circle who had been charged with various crimes, including Republican operative Roger Stone, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Charles Kushner — the father of his senior advisor, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Charles Kushner, himself a real estate billionaire, pleaded guilty in 2004 to filing false tax returns, lying to the Federal Election Commission and retaliating against a witness: his own brother-in-law.

The case, prosecuted by then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, led to Kushner attempting an elaborate blackmail plot against his brother-in-law and former employee, William Schulder, who had become a witness for federal prosecutors. He hired a prostitute to sleep with Schulder, secretly videotaped the encounter and mailed the recording to Schulder’s wife — his own sister — who turned it over to authorities.

Kushner served about two years in prison before his release in 2006, and Trump cited his philanthropic record “of reform and charity” when pardoning him in 2020. Over the weekend, Trump announced he intends to nominate Charles Kushner to serve as ambassador to France.

Advertisement

How does Hunter’s pardon fit into Biden’s clemency record?

Biden has pardoned 25 individuals and commuted 132 sentences during his tenure, according to Justice Department data. He has granted clemency to many more, including entire groups.

In 2022, he took executive action to pardon the more than 6,500 people convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law and D.C. statute, which he expanded last year. Earlier this year, he issued a blanket pardon to LGBTQ+ service members removed from the military over their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Even so, Eisen says there is much more Biden could do before his term ends — including addressing the more than 8,000 petitions for clemency pending before his administration.

The Brennan Center, which describes itself as a nonpartisan law and policy organization, is among the groups urging the president to commute all death sentences to life without parole.

Last month, more than 60 members of Congress wrote Biden a letter asking him to use his authority to “help broad classes of people and cases, including the elderly and chronically ill, those on death row, people with unjustified sentencing disparities, and women who were punished for defending themselves against their abusers.”

Advertisement

While Biden’s most recent — and most personal — pardon is in the spotlight, Eisen hopes he will take this opportunity to afford the same grace to many others who are already serving what she calls excessive sentences.

“President Biden has until January 20 to provide clemency for thousands of individuals who are appropriate clemency candidates who are sitting in federal prison right now,” Eisen says. “So there’s plenty of time.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading

News

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Published

on

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images

Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.

The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.

The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.

Advertisement

According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.

Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.

“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”

Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.

The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.

Advertisement

Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.

Continue Reading

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending