An outrageous pardon? On what planet?

Critics of the Hunter Biden pardon live in a fantasy world

PART 1

Let’s talk presidential pardons. But instead of getting the vapors and collapsing in couch-fainting outrage that accompanied the Hunter Biden pardon, let’s talk reality.

To examine this with, you know, facts I’ll have to dig into both the Hunter pardon and the scores of the corrupt, unethical pardons granted by Donald Trump in his first term (and the ones he promises for his second.) Somehow, Democrats and the media have shoved these realities down the memory hole, while Republicans - with their usual mendacity - screech that there has never been an abuse as terrible as the Hunter pardon. But I’ll deal with that in part 2.(For clarity, I’ll refer to the president’s son as “Hunter - just like MAGAs do.)

In Hunter’s case, one of the biggest charges was failure to pay taxes on time, even though he eventually did pay them, including penalties and interest. Prior to that resolution, he owed $2 million in taxes accumulated over four years. Probably Trump and his MAGA cohorts think that’s outrageous and that just those charges should have put Hunter in jail for decades.

Yah, well, shut the hell up. I lied. I wasn’t writing about Hunter - who owed $1.4 million accumulated over four years. No, the scofflaw who racked up 43% more in unpaid taxes over the exact same number of years was none other than Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime consigliere. (Can’t you imagine how MAGAs are backtracking right now, trying to figure out why Stone’s case is ok?) So what were the criminal charges against Roger Stone? Nothing. How much time did he get in prison? None. Instead, during the exact same time that Hunter was battling criminal charges for doing less than Stone, Trump’s buddy was facing civil charges.

This is prima facia evidence of selective prosecution, where the same actions are characterized as a crime or not depending on the identity of the defendant. And the proof that Hunter was brought into criminal court simply because he is Joe Biden’s son runs a lot deeper than that.

But for a moment, let’s take a look at precedent on the issue of selective prosecution, which is about as well-established as any concept under the law. Defendants don’t have to prove a lot to win an evidentiary hearing on selective prosecution. United States v Armstrong established in 1996 that evidence marshaled by a defendant must support inferences that the prosecution exercised its discretion with (1) “discriminatory purpose” and (2) “discriminatory effect.” A 1972 case, US v. Steele, makes clear that when a defendant alleges such evidence, the prosecution must show in an evidentiary hearing that “the selection process actually rested upon some valid ground.”