The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case 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 called out the president for maligning law enforcement and the justice system in his rationale for issuing the clemency, and the judge even indicated that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.
The blunt criticism of a sitting president from a federal judge adds to the condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to give the “full and unconditional” pardon after repeatedly saying he wouldn’t.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for reneging on a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the claim of unequal, biased treatment that the president invoked to spare his son prison time in the tax case. The pardon, which absolves Hunter Biden of any and all federal offenses in an 11-year period, also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.
“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of 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 became sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — like luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s tuition — as business expenses.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could reach “any other conclusion” than Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.
“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.
“In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.
Scarsi noted that President Biden has “broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
In his ruling, Scarsi said he would vacate Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for Dec. 16, and dispose of his case. He wrote that the case would be terminated once the pardon signed by President Biden “is formally received.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not substantiated by an authenticating declaration.”
Much of Scarsi’s ruling focused on the breadth of the 11-year timeframe of the pardon, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi reasoned that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency issued for Hunter extended to conduct “through Dec. 1” and was also signed that day.
“The warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he was opting to understand the pardon as covering conduct “through the time of execution” on Sunday.
The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case 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 called out the president for maligning law enforcement and the justice system in his rationale for issuing the clemency, and the judge even indicated that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.
The blunt criticism of a sitting president from a federal judge adds to the condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to give the “full and unconditional” pardon after repeatedly saying he wouldn’t.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for reneging on a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the claim of unequal, biased treatment that the president invoked to spare his son prison time in the tax case. The pardon, which absolves Hunter Biden of any and all federal offenses in an 11-year period, also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.
“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of 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 became sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — like luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s tuition — as business expenses.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could reach “any other conclusion” than Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.
“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.
“In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.
Scarsi noted that President Biden has “broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
In his ruling, Scarsi said he would vacate Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for Dec. 16, and dispose of his case. He wrote that the case would be terminated once the pardon signed by President Biden “is formally received.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not substantiated by an authenticating declaration.”
Much of Scarsi’s ruling focused on the breadth of the 11-year timeframe of the pardon, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi reasoned that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency issued for Hunter extended to conduct “through Dec. 1” and was also signed that day.
“The warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he was opting to understand the pardon as covering conduct “through the time of execution” on Sunday.
The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case 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 called out the president for maligning law enforcement and the justice system in his rationale for issuing the clemency, and the judge even indicated that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.
The blunt criticism of a sitting president from a federal judge adds to the condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to give the “full and unconditional” pardon after repeatedly saying he wouldn’t.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for reneging on a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the claim of unequal, biased treatment that the president invoked to spare his son prison time in the tax case. The pardon, which absolves Hunter Biden of any and all federal offenses in an 11-year period, also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.
“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of 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 became sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — like luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s tuition — as business expenses.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could reach “any other conclusion” than Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.
“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.
“In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.
Scarsi noted that President Biden has “broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
In his ruling, Scarsi said he would vacate Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for Dec. 16, and dispose of his case. He wrote that the case would be terminated once the pardon signed by President Biden “is formally received.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not substantiated by an authenticating declaration.”
Much of Scarsi’s ruling focused on the breadth of the 11-year timeframe of the pardon, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi reasoned that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency issued for Hunter extended to conduct “through Dec. 1” and was also signed that day.
“The warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he was opting to understand the pardon as covering conduct “through the time of execution” on Sunday.
The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case 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 called out the president for maligning law enforcement and the justice system in his rationale for issuing the clemency, and the judge even indicated that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.
The blunt criticism of a sitting president from a federal judge adds to the condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to give the “full and unconditional” pardon after repeatedly saying he wouldn’t.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for reneging on a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the claim of unequal, biased treatment that the president invoked to spare his son prison time in the tax case. The pardon, which absolves Hunter Biden of any and all federal offenses in an 11-year period, also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.
“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of 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 became sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — like luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s tuition — as business expenses.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could reach “any other conclusion” than Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.
“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.
“In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.
Scarsi noted that President Biden has “broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
In his ruling, Scarsi said he would vacate Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for Dec. 16, and dispose of his case. He wrote that the case would be terminated once the pardon signed by President Biden “is formally received.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not substantiated by an authenticating declaration.”
Much of Scarsi’s ruling focused on the breadth of the 11-year timeframe of the pardon, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi reasoned that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency issued for Hunter extended to conduct “through Dec. 1” and was also signed that day.
“The warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he was opting to understand the pardon as covering conduct “through the time of execution” on Sunday.
The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case 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 called out the president for maligning law enforcement and the justice system in his rationale for issuing the clemency, and the judge even indicated that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.
The blunt criticism of a sitting president from a federal judge adds to the condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to give the “full and unconditional” pardon after repeatedly saying he wouldn’t.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for reneging on a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the claim of unequal, biased treatment that the president invoked to spare his son prison time in the tax case. The pardon, which absolves Hunter Biden of any and all federal offenses in an 11-year period, also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.
“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of 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 became sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — like luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s tuition — as business expenses.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could reach “any other conclusion” than Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.
“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.
“In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.
Scarsi noted that President Biden has “broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
In his ruling, Scarsi said he would vacate Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for Dec. 16, and dispose of his case. He wrote that the case would be terminated once the pardon signed by President Biden “is formally received.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not substantiated by an authenticating declaration.”
Much of Scarsi’s ruling focused on the breadth of the 11-year timeframe of the pardon, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi reasoned that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency issued for Hunter extended to conduct “through Dec. 1” and was also signed that day.
“The warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he was opting to understand the pardon as covering conduct “through the time of execution” on Sunday.
The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case 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 called out the president for maligning law enforcement and the justice system in his rationale for issuing the clemency, and the judge even indicated that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.
The blunt criticism of a sitting president from a federal judge adds to the condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to give the “full and unconditional” pardon after repeatedly saying he wouldn’t.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for reneging on a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the claim of unequal, biased treatment that the president invoked to spare his son prison time in the tax case. The pardon, which absolves Hunter Biden of any and all federal offenses in an 11-year period, also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.
“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of 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 became sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — like luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s tuition — as business expenses.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could reach “any other conclusion” than Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.
“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.
“In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.
Scarsi noted that President Biden has “broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
In his ruling, Scarsi said he would vacate Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for Dec. 16, and dispose of his case. He wrote that the case would be terminated once the pardon signed by President Biden “is formally received.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not substantiated by an authenticating declaration.”
Much of Scarsi’s ruling focused on the breadth of the 11-year timeframe of the pardon, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi reasoned that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency issued for Hunter extended to conduct “through Dec. 1” and was also signed that day.
“The warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he was opting to understand the pardon as covering conduct “through the time of execution” on Sunday.
The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case 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 called out the president for maligning law enforcement and the justice system in his rationale for issuing the clemency, and the judge even indicated that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.
The blunt criticism of a sitting president from a federal judge adds to the condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to give the “full and unconditional” pardon after repeatedly saying he wouldn’t.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for reneging on a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the claim of unequal, biased treatment that the president invoked to spare his son prison time in the tax case. The pardon, which absolves Hunter Biden of any and all federal offenses in an 11-year period, also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.
“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of 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 became sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — like luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s tuition — as business expenses.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could reach “any other conclusion” than Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.
“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.
“In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.
Scarsi noted that President Biden has “broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
In his ruling, Scarsi said he would vacate Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for Dec. 16, and dispose of his case. He wrote that the case would be terminated once the pardon signed by President Biden “is formally received.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not substantiated by an authenticating declaration.”
Much of Scarsi’s ruling focused on the breadth of the 11-year timeframe of the pardon, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi reasoned that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency issued for Hunter extended to conduct “through Dec. 1” and was also signed that day.
“The warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he was opting to understand the pardon as covering conduct “through the time of execution” on Sunday.
The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case 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 called out the president for maligning law enforcement and the justice system in his rationale for issuing the clemency, and the judge even indicated that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.
The blunt criticism of a sitting president from a federal judge adds to the condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to give the “full and unconditional” pardon after repeatedly saying he wouldn’t.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for reneging on a promise.
Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the claim of unequal, biased treatment that the president invoked to spare his son prison time in the tax case. The pardon, which absolves Hunter Biden of any and all federal offenses in an 11-year period, also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.
“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of 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 became sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — like luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s tuition — as business expenses.
Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could reach “any other conclusion” than Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.
“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.
“In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.
Scarsi noted that President Biden has “broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”
In his ruling, Scarsi said he would vacate Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for Dec. 16, and dispose of his case. He wrote that the case would be terminated once the pardon signed by President Biden “is formally received.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not substantiated by an authenticating declaration.”
Much of Scarsi’s ruling focused on the breadth of the 11-year timeframe of the pardon, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi reasoned that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency issued for Hunter extended to conduct “through Dec. 1” and was also signed that day.
“The warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he was opting to understand the pardon as covering conduct “through the time of execution” on Sunday.
