The judge who presided over Hunter Biden's federal tax trial in Los Angeles rebuked President Biden on Tuesday for pardoning his son this week, saying he misrepresented the facts of his son's criminal case when he announced the move.
In a brief order, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi also accused the president of denigrating law enforcement and the justice system in his justification for granting the clemency, and the judge even suggested that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.
A federal judge's blunt criticism of a sitting president deepens condemnation from both Republicans and Democrats over the president's extraordinary decision on Sunday to grant the “full and unconditional” pardon after he repeatedly said he would not do so .
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for breaking a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, objected to claims of disparate and biased treatment that the president used to spare his son from prison in the tax case. The pardon, which clears Hunter Biden of all federal crimes for 11 years, also overturned a Delaware jury's verdict that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.
“The President claims that Mr. Biden 'was treated differently' than others 'who paid their taxes late because of serious addictions,'” Scarsi wrote. The judge explained what he believes is the flaw in that thinking: Hunter Biden had pleaded guilty to tax evasion after getting sober when he misclassified personal expenses — such as luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter's college tuition — as business expenses.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden's claim that no “reasonable person” could come to “any conclusion” other than Hunter. Biden was singled out because of his last name.
“But two federal judges specifically rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the administration prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his family relationship with the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s Attorney General and Justice Department staff oversaw the investigations that led to the indictments.
“In the President’s judgment, this legion of federal officials, including the signatories, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.
Scarsi noted that President Biden “has broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for crimes against the United States…but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
In his decision, Scarsi said he would cancel Hunter Biden's sentencing hearing scheduled for Dec. 16 and close his case. He wrote that the case would be closed once the pardon signed by President Biden was “formally received.”
Hunter Biden's lawyers submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not supported by any authenticating statement.”
Much of Scarsi's ruling focused on the breadth of the pardon's 11-year time frame, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi argued that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency authorization for Hunter covered conduct “through December 1” and was signed that day.
“The warrant may be construed to apply prospectively to conduct that has not yet occurred at the time of its execution and is beyond the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he chose to read the pardon as covering conduct “up to and including execution” on Sunday.