In my recent post, I discussed President Biden’s pardon of his son and how it may not completely resolve his legal issues. Similar situations occurred during the Trump administration, where pardons were issued but legal cases persisted.
Yesterday, Hunter Biden’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. The motion stated that the President’s pardon requires the dismissal of the indictment with prejudice, ending all future proceedings.
Defendant Robert Hunter Biden has submitted a Full and Unconditional Pardon, leading to the dismissal of the Indictment against him. The President’s pardon nullifies pending sentencing and judgment in this case, resulting in the automatic dismissal of the Indictment with prejudice.
Today, Special Counsel David Weiss filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. It appears that these filings were prepared in anticipation of a potential Biden pardon. Weiss’s opposition challenges the notion that a pardon requires indictment dismissal.
The debate surrounding pardons is complex, with differing views on whether pardons erase convictions entirely or simply prevent consequences. The Arpaio case suggests the latter, while Hunter Biden supports the former perspective.
Questions arise regarding the binding nature of pardons on courts and the potential for state charges even after a federal conviction is vacated. These uncertainties have been on my mind all day.
As the day comes to a close, Merrick Garland has yet to resign. Will Biden take action to remove David Weiss to protect his son? The situation remains uncertain.
