The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case in Los Angeles on Tuesday criticized President Biden for pardoning his son this week, saying he misrepresented the facts of his son’s criminal case when he announced the measure.
In a brief order, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi accused Hunter Biden’s attorneys of failing to submit a copy of the pardon signed by President Biden. He further challenged the president’s explanation for the pardon, saying it defamed federal law enforcement and the justice system.
A federal judge’s blunt criticism of a sitting president adds to condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to pardon his son for all offenses over an 11-year period after he had repeatedly said he would not do that.
Read more: President Biden pardons his son and claims Hunter Biden was wrongfully prosecuted
On Tuesday, Governor Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for not keeping a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the president’s claim of unequal, biased treatment to spare his son jail time in the tax case. The pardon also wiped out the verdict of a Delaware jury that convicted Hunter Biden of illegally purchasing a gun.
“The President claims that Mr. Biden was ‘treated differently’ than others ‘who were late paying their taxes due to serious addictions,’” Scarsi wrote. The judge explained what he sees as the flaw in that thinking: Hunter Biden had pleaded guilty to tax evasion that occurred after he got sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — such as luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s college tuition — as business expenditure.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could come to “any conclusion” other than that Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.
Read more: Now that a pardon has been granted, Hunter Biden looks to the future: writing? Podcasting? “Healing,” says friend
“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the administration prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relationship with the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the staff of the Attorney General and the President’s Department of Justice oversaw the investigation that led to the indictment.
“In the President’s assessment, this legion of federal officials, including the undersigned, 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 power to rewrite history.”
In his ruling, Scarsi said he would leave Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing scheduled for December 16, but would not end the case until the pardon signed by President Biden was formally submitted.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition, the judge questioned the structure of the pardon, noting that it covered conduct “through December 1” but was signed on the same day.
“The order may be read as applying prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, and which exceeds the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he chose to interpret the pardon as conduct “during the execution” on Sunday.
Sign up for Essential California to get news, features, recommendations from the LA Times and more delivered to your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
