Patrick Healy, the deputy Opinion editor, hosted an online conversation with the Times Opinion columnists Ross Douthat and David French about President Biden’s decision to issue a broad pardon to his son Hunter Biden.
Patrick Healy: Ross and David, you both have written extensively about the rule of law and presidential power. You both have a good sense of what American voters care about. And you both are fathers. So I’m curious what struck you most about President Biden’s statement that he was pardoning his son Hunter Biden.
David French: As a father, I think it would be very, very hard to watch your son go to prison — especially if you have the power to set him free. I can’t imagine the pain of watching Hunter’s long battle with substance abuse and then watching his conviction in court. But in his role as president, Biden’s primary responsibility is to the country and the Constitution, not his family.
As president, this pardon represents a profound failure. Biden was dishonest — he told us that he wouldn’t pardon Hunter — and this use of the pardon power reeks of the kind of royal privilege that is antithetical to America’s republican values.
Healy: Biden’s decision to rule out the pardon while running for re-election was an enormous misjudgment. At the same time, David — Hunter Biden didn’t harm anyone, and pardons go to people with connections all the time now. I want to understand your umbrage on behalf of “the country and the Constitution” a bit better.
French: When Biden issued the pardon, my first thought was “here we go again.” It’s exactly this kind of self-dealing and favoritism that has created such cynicism in this country, and the fact that pardon abuse is almost routine at this point isn’t a defense of Biden. It’s an indictment of a political class that helped lay the groundwork for Donald Trump — a much worse figure, by the way, but one that did not arise in an otherwise-healthy moment in American democracy.
Ross Douthat: I think it’s important to stress that Biden always kept Hunter close, within the larger aura of his own power, in ways that likely helped his son trade on his dad’s name even as his own life was completely out of control. This pardon is a continuation or completion of that closeness: It’s a moral failure, as David says, a dereliction, but one that’s of a piece with the president’s larger inability to create a sustained separation between his own position and his troubled son’s lifestyle and business dealings and place in the family’s inner circle. A clearer separation would have been better not just for the president and the country, but also for Hunter himself — even if he’s benefiting from it now, at the last.
Healy: Ross, Hunter Biden should absolutely be held accountable for his actions — that’s something that 12-step programs make clear to addicts, in fact: Their addiction is no excuse for breaking the law, for instance. But it seems like you are conflating Biden’s legitimate powers as president with how you think he should have regarded his son in office.
Douthat: I’m not saying that Biden’s pardon of Hunter is categorically worse than prior presidents’ use of the power to help out cronies and donors and the like. But most people regarded, say, Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich as scandalous even though it fell within the ambit of legitimate presidential powers, and this case is scandalous as well. Whether it’s more corrupt to help a relative than a party donor or donor’s spouse is an interesting subject for debate about the nature of political ethics, but I don’t think we need to resolve that question. We can just say that (1) past presidents have used the pardon power in legal but disreputable ways and (2) pardoning your son is also quite disreputable even if it is constitutional as well.
Read the rest here.
Something that struck me as I was reading this, was the realization that Hunter's troubles may not be over. If the GOP (soon to be in full control of the government) decides to hold more hearings on his activities he cannot refuse to testify. Having been granted a full pardon, he no longer can invoke the 5th amendment. Which means he can be grilled under oath about pretty much any subject since 2014 with no recourse. That could get very ugly, very fast.
No comments:
Post a Comment