Hunter Biden’s Controversial Interview and the Unconstitutional Pardon
Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, has recently sparked widespread controversy with an explosive interview and a subsequent pardon for serious crimes. In the interview, he delivered an unhinged rant about illegal immigrants and deportations, while his legal troubles—culminating in a presidential pardon—have raised significant questions about the rule of law and the limits of executive power. This article explores
Hunter Biden’s interview, his criminal convictions, the pardon he received, and the argument that this pardon was an unconstitutional overreach due to the absence of a true miscarriage of justice.
The Interview: A Fiery Outburst on Immigration
In a recent interview, reportedly conducted in Wilmington, Delaware, Hunter Biden unleashed a passionate and profanity-laced defense of undocumented immigrants. According to posts on social media platforms like X, he lashed out at critics of illegal immigration, allegedly stating, “People are really upset about illegal immigration? Fuck you. How do you think your hotel room gets cleaned? How do you think you have food on your fucking table? Who do you think washes your dishes?”
While these quotes stem from social media and their accuracy remains unverified, they align with reports of Biden’s strong stance on the issue. His comments appear to champion the economic contributions of undocumented workers, framing them as essential to industries like hospitality and food service, while condemning those who support stricter immigration enforcement. This outburst underscores the polarizing nature of immigration policy in the United States and Hunter Biden’s willingness to engage in the debate with raw emotion.
Hunter Biden’s Crimes: A Trail of Felonies
Hunter Biden’s legal woes stem from two high-profile cases that resulted in felony convictions. In June 2024, he was found guilty of three charges related to a 2018 firearm purchase. Prosecutors demonstrated that he lied on a federal form by denying illegal drug use, despite evidence of his ongoing substance abuse. This violation of federal gun laws carried significant penalties.
Then, in September 2024, Biden pleaded guilty to nine tax-related charges spanning 2014 to 2019. These included tax evasion, filing false tax returns, and failing to file and pay taxes on time, with unpaid taxes exceeding $1.4 million. Together, these convictions exposed him to a potential prison sentence of up to 17 years. The evidence in both cases—ranging from financial records to witness testimony—was robust, and the legal proceedings were conducted with due process, leaving little doubt about his guilt.
The Pardon: A Presidential Intervention
On December 1, 2024, just weeks before leaving office, President Joe Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon to his son, Hunter Biden. This sweeping pardon covered all federal offenses committed between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2024, effectively erasing his convictions and protecting him from further prosecution for those crimes. In his official statement, President Biden justified the decision by claiming that Hunter had been “selectively and unfairly prosecuted” due to political pressures.
He argued that the charges stemmed from a “political campaign” by his adversaries and that the justice system had been corrupted by “raw politics,” resulting in a “miscarriage of justice.” However, this narrative has faced sharp criticism, as no evidence suggests procedural errors or wrongful conviction in Hunter Biden’s cases.
The Unconstitutionality Argument: Overstepping Executive Authority
The U.S. Constitution grants the president broad authority to issue pardons under Article II, Section 2, but this power is not absolute. Historically, pardons have served to rectify miscarriages of justice—such as wrongful convictions or disproportionate punishments—or to extend mercy in extraordinary circumstances.
A miscarriage of justice typically involves a failure of the legal system, like fabricated evidence or judicial misconduct, none of which applies to Hunter Biden’s situation. His convictions rested on solid evidence, and the judicial process was meticulous and fair. Legal scholars argue that this pardon lacks a legitimate basis and constitutes an abuse of executive power.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has hinted in past rulings, such as Ex parte Garland (1866), that pardons might be invalid if they contravene other constitutional principles, like equal protection or due process. By pardoning his own son, President Biden arguably undermined the impartiality of justice, creating a perception of favoritism. This precedent could embolden future presidents to shield allies or family members from accountability, weakening the rule of law. The ethical implications are equally troubling: when a president intervenes to protect a relative, it erodes public confidence in the legal system and suggests a double standard—one for the elite and another for ordinary citizens.
Political Context: A Partisan Firestorm
The timing of the pardon intensifies its controversy. Issued shortly after the 2024 election, in which Donald Trump secured the presidency, it has sparked speculation about political motives. Critics contend that President Biden acted preemptively to safeguard Hunter from potential investigations or harsher scrutiny under the incoming administration. Others view it as a final effort to insulate the Biden family from the political fallout of Hunter’s scandals. Supporters, however, maintain that Hunter was unfairly targeted due to his father’s prominence, framing the pardon as a corrective measure against partisan overreach.
This debate reflects broader tensions in American politics. The pardon has deepened public distrust in institutions, with many seeing it as evidence of corruption or nepotism at the highest levels. Whether motivated by protectionism or paternal loyalty, the decision has fueled partisan rancor and highlighted the difficulty of maintaining an impartial justice system amid intense political polarization.