top of page

KJP says Biden will NOT pardon Hunter

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre strongly rejected the possibility of President Biden granting a pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, who is currently negotiating a new plea deal with the Justice Department related to allegations of tax evasion. In response to a reporter's query about the potential for a presidential pardon, Jean-Pierre firmly stated, "No." She then cut off further questioning from the reporter with a curt reminder of her previous response.

This standout moment marks an unusual and definitive stance from the White House concerning Hunter Biden's legal challenges. It came on the heels of the president's son appearing in a Delaware federal court, where the initial plea deal disintegrated during a lengthy court hearing lasting nearly three hours.

Throughout that day, the White House skillfully evaded inquiries about Hunter Biden's legal woes by emphasizing that he is a private citizen and portraying the matter as a personal one. Jean-Pierre reiterated this stance on Wednesday, noting that President Biden and the first lady love their son and are supportive as he works towards rebuilding his life.

The White House has consistently emphasized the independent nature of the Justice Department, redirecting questions about Hunter Biden's case to the agency. It has also highlighted that the investigation was overseen by a prosecutor appointed under the previous administration of President Trump.

Echoing this sentiment, Jean-Pierre maintained that the DOJ operates autonomously when questioned about any preferential treatment requested by President Biden, his family, members of his administration, or even former President Trump.

On Wednesday, Hunter Biden was expected to enter a guilty plea to two misdemeanor charges for willful failure to pay income taxes as part of a previously announced agreement with the Justice Department. However, he surprised many by pleading not guilty, causing a pause in the plea deal that involved tax and gun charges. The presiding judge raised concerns about the scope and terms of the agreement, leading to this unexpected development in the case.

58 views3 comments
bottom of page