How often did President Biden repeat the mantra that the “rich need to pay their fair share” of taxes? How many times did he call for universal background checks for gun buyers?
Now he has just pardoned a wealthy convicted tax-cheat who lied to the government to buy a gun and then wrote about it in his memoir.
Although Biden’s pardon statement mentioned that his son belatedly paid his taxes for the years 2016 to 2019 (actually, a donor paid the IRS for him), he did so only after he found himself under investigation for spending millions on an “extravagant lifestyle” while flouting his tax bill.
What’s more, because the Justice Department needlessly let the statute of limitations expire on Hunter’s tax-cheating prior to 2016, an IRS whistleblower revealed that he will apparently never have to pay at least $125,000 (that’s described as the most conservative estimate) in taxes from 2014 on income from his no-work job on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company.
But even that isn’t the worst part. In fact, I was ready to accept a pardon for the crimes noted above, and I encouraged President-elect Trump to support a pardon for Hunter.
The worst part is that this pardon does not merely cover the gun and tax crimes for which Hunter was convicted. Rather, it covers any federal crime he may have committed over the last 11 years. So if Hunter confesses to the world tomorrow that he has been stealing his neighbors’ mail, dumping nuclear waste on federal land and shooting bald eagles for the last decade, no one can touch him for it.
That is the part of this sordid affair that will stain Biden’s presidency in perpetuity. And bear in mind, this blanket pardon — this get-out-of-jail-free card — is for a guilty man who never once saw the inside of a jail cell.
The pardon power is absolute in the Constitution, except when it comes to impeachment. So Hunter Biden has officially gotten away with it. There’s nothing anyone can do about that.
That said, this is as good of a time as any to revisit that power.
According to the White House Historical Association, “The origins of the pardon power in the United States Constitution can be found in English history, known previously as the ‘prerogative of mercy.’ It first appeared during the reign of King Ine of Wessex in the seventh century.”
With echoes of today, the WHHA continues, “Although abuses of the pardon power increased over time, leading to limitations on it, the pardon power persisted through the American colonial period.”
What kind of limitations should be placed on the power? Simple — it should be limited by the presidential election.
Some would like to forbid pardoning of presidents’ family members. I view that as unfair. Why should anyone be declared ineligible for something, simply because of who they are related to?
What I would advocate for is transparency with accountability. My proposal is a ban on presidential pardons starting one month before every federal election and ending at noon on Inauguration Day. This would give voters the opportunity to weigh in on pardons.
The way the pardon power has been wielded in recent decades is as something presidents do in a mad last-minute scramble as they are packing up to leave the White House and no one is paying attention.
This timing allows for shady deals — anyone remember Marc Rich, another tax cheat whose ex-wife essentially bought him a pardon for crimes he had only been charged with, having fled the country to avoid accountability? It was only timing that allowed Biden to lie to the public starting last June that he would not pardon his son, no matter what. Of course, most people assumed Biden was lying, but my proposal would have forced his hand — pardon Hunter now, or else wager his fate on your own reelection or the winner’s good graces.
The pardon power has become something everyone expects to be exercised with zero accountability. But we do not have to accept that. By placing a limit on when pardons can be issued, we can give future presidents pause before they dish them out to family, donors or anyone else. If they’re going to sign the order, they should be able to defend it. They should be willing to defend it.
This would require amending the Constitution. That may seem unlikely, but it is not impossible. Congress once imposed term limits on the presidency with the 22 Amendment. The president, who has the most to lose from this, plays no role in the constitutional amendment process. And the current president will never face the voters again anyway.
It is certainly possible; all it would take is the will.
Derek Hunter is host of the Derek Hunter Podcast and a former staffer for the late Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).
