Trump Fans Can Only Spin Hunter Pardon As Big Win If Media Helps Mislead On Facts — So Far, So Good

Trump fans and allies are being aided by the media in spinning President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon Hunter Biden as a big win — and a permission slip to do whatever they want.

President Biden stunned the political media world Sunday when he announced he is pardoning his son, writing that Hunter “was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong.”

The pardon was greeted with widespread criticism from the media, including both critics and some allies, as well as from President-elect Donald Trump.

From certain quarters, the criticism is predictable — you could practically see the remnants of anticipatory drool when CNN’s Scott Jennings went into high dudgeon mode as he launched into a screed that included calling colleague Karen Finney “brain-rotted.”

The hand-wringing from allies — Never-Trumpers and former Trumpers among them — is equally predictable and useful to Trump.

But the most damaging takes are from ostensibly objective media figures who willfully disregard the facts and the substance to bolster the idea that what the president did was some yuge travesty, and is equivalent — or worse — to the things Trump has done.

This phenomenon is rampant in the coverage of the pardon, so I’m not picking on anyone — but it’s best exemplified by CNN legal analyst Elie Honig.

In his analysis on Monday morning’s edition of CNN News Central, Honig trashed the decision at length — then admitted in the fine print that “There is a reasonable argument that in some respects, Hunter Biden was treated unfairly.”

That’s Honig-ese for “Hunter Biden was treated unfairly.”

This is not some kind of technicality that deserves the footnote treatment, it is central to the factual basis upon which this pardon was issued — though not the sole one.

After news broke in June 2023 that President Joe Biden’s only surviving son Hunter had reached a plea deal on three federal charges — two tax misdemeanors and one gun felony — Trump and many other Republicans immediately complained loudly about the deal.

In short order the deal fell apart, and that August, Attorney General Merrick Garland dropped a big announcement: he named David Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney who had been overseeing the investigation into Hunter Biden — special counsel. In September, Hunter Biden entered guilty pleas on charges that carry a maximum sentence of 25 years, avoiding a trial.

As the president said in his statement announcing the pardon, that set of facts could not be clearer:

The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.

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.

President Biden also addressed, albeit obliquely, his past statements about not interfering with the administration of justice — while pointing out some key facts:

From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.

Unsaid by Biden — and more importantly, by critics like Honig who shape public opinion — is the fact that many things have changed since the president made these now-ubiquitous statements about pardoning Hunter.

In a June 6 interview with ABC’s David Muir:

David Muir: As we sit here in Normandy, your son, Hunter, is on trial. And I know that you cannot speak about an ongoing federal prosecution, but let me ask you, will you accept the jury’s outcome, their verdict, no matter what it is?

Joe Biden: Yes.

David Muir: And have you ruled out a pardon for your son?

Joe Biden: Yes.First

And during a June 13 press conference:

PRESIDENT BIDEN: With regard to the question regarding the family, I’m extremely proud of my son Hunter. He has overcome an addiction. He is — he’s one of the brightest, most decent men I know. And I am satisfied that — I’m not going to do anything. I sa- — I said I’d abide by the jury decision, and I will do that. And I will not pardon him.

Those statements are now being characterized as “lies” — and for partisans like Jennings or Trump, that’s a fair move. Without a doubt Democrats would say the same if the situation were reversed.

But news personnel aren’t supposed to emulate partisans. There’s a big difference between “lying” and changing your mind, and it is the duty of journalists (who thought of every euphemism they could to avoid calling Trump a liar) to give Americans all of the facts.

First of all, when Biden made those pledges he was still running for president and was fairly certain civilly liable sexual predator and convicted felon was not going to succeed him, mitigating the need to protect Hunter from further attacks. Even after he dropped out, things were looking good for Vice President Kamala Harris — even in the days and hours before Trump’s surprise victory.

During that time, Trump made attacking Hunter a regular part of his stump — a campaign of lies and discredited and debunked accusations that help explain why the president’s pardon encompasses such a wide time period:

A Full and Unconditional Pardon

For those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

For example, here’s Trump’s Hunter chunk from an August rally in Pennsylvania parroting the discredited and widely-derided probe into allegations dating back to Biden’s time as VP:

What else has changed? While it is true that President Biden began his campaign framing Trump as a threat to democracy, the closing weeks of the campaign featured a drastic escalation of evidence to that effect — with disturbing specificity.

In late October, former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly went on the record recounting stunning conversations in which Trump said Nazi leader Adolf Hitler did “some good things” and wished his own generals were more like Hitler’s, and called Trump a fascist.

Kelly was part of a dambreak of Trump national security officials — former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley and ex-Trump Secretary of Defense Mark Esper among them — agreeing Trump is a fascist. Trump’s own running mate, Vice President-elect JD Vance, once called Trump “America’s Hitler” before changing his tune after Trump won.

As Biden and literally everyone on CNN has noted, Trump also made “retribution” a central theme of his campaign — and unyielding loyalty the central theme of his transition. Why would Biden leave his son open to persecution by someone whose own closest advisers — and some of his voters — consider a fascist?

Is it a coincidence that the pardon came the day after Trump nominated rabid loyalist Kash Patel to be FBI director? The juxtaposition is illustrative.

None of this is to say that the news media should ignore the gulf between what Biden said in June and what he just did — far from it. It is their duty to give viewers and readers all of the facts, not to throw up their hands and just let partisans duke it out.

President Biden had every reason to believe he would not need to pardon his son when he made those statements — and demonstrable reasons to change his mind.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.