The White House reiterated on Friday that President Biden would not pardon his son Hunter Biden if he is convicted of a crime.

When asked if Biden would commute his son’s sentence if convicted on gun charges, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said no. This marks the first definitive answer the administration has given since Hunter Biden was formally charged on Thursday, though a similar message was first floated in July.

“I’ve answered this question before,” Jean-Pierre said, referencing the July briefing. “It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, and I was very clear, and I said no.”

Hunter Biden was indicted on three felony gun charges, alleging that the younger Biden illegally purchased a gun while on drugs. The charges could carry a 10 year sentence if convicted.

His attorney has denied the charges, and said their constitutionality is “very much in doubt”

“It is a unique and unjustified charge. Hunter owned an unloaded gun for 11 days,” attorney Abbe Lowell said Thursday. “There has never been a charge like this that has been brought in the United States.”

The president’s son is also under investigation by a federal special counsel for alleged tax misconduct and by a Republican House investigation into prior business deals.

Special Counsel David Weiss stated in court filings that he intends to finalize charges related to the tax misconduct by the end of the month.

Republicans allege that Biden used his position to garner lucrative deals for his son. Members of the House GOP have used the claims to push for an impeachment inquiry against the president.

  • seathru@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hunter Biden was indicted on three felony gun charges, alleging that the younger Biden illegally purchased a gun while on drugs.

    Do Republicans really want to open the Pandora’s box of combing through firearms sales? Surely that leopard wouldn’t turn on them.

    Hunter owned an unloaded gun for 11 days

    That kind of sounds like a straw purchase, and is something with a legal precedent. Why wouldn’t they go for that?

    • DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      That kind of sounds like a straw purchase, and is something with a legal precedent. Why wouldn’t they go for that?

      He only owned it for 11 days because his wife threw it in the garbage.

      • seathru@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ahh, the old “My wife threw it in the trash”. Second only to “I lost it in a boating accident”.

        I jest. Thanks for answering, I didn’t know that part.