President Joe Biden faces a personal and political dilemma unlike any other: whether to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, who is set to face sentencing in two federal courts in December. On one hand, the president’s decision will have profound implications for his legacy, the integrity of his office, and his family. On the other, it will inevitably spark political firestorms and accusations of favoritism. With Donald Trump poised to return to the White House and Hunter Biden possibly facing years behind bars, the stakes could not be higher.

Hunter Biden’s legal woes stem from two separate cases. On December 12, he will be sentenced in federal court in Delaware for purchasing a firearm in 2018 while addicted to drugs, a charge that is rarely prosecuted. A few days later, he will appear in a Los Angeles federal court to be sentenced on tax fraud charges, to which he pleaded guilty in September. These cases mark the culmination of a lengthy investigation that many argue has been politically charged from the outset.

The gun charge carries a sentencing guideline of around one year in prison, though the unusual nature of the case leaves room for leniency. The tax fraud case, however, poses a more serious threat. Prosecutors allege that Hunter failed to pay $1.4 million in taxes, a figure that could lead to a recommended sentence of two to three years under federal guidelines.

Should Hunter Biden receive a prison sentence, President Biden could intervene by commuting the sentence or issuing a pardon. A commutation would reduce or eliminate the prison term without erasing the conviction, signaling compassion without implying innocence. A pardon, on the other hand, would absolve Hunter of legal guilt, a step that would likely provoke even greater controversy.

From a legal standpoint, the president has the authority to grant clemency for federal crimes, and there is precedent for presidents using this power to address perceived injustices. Hunter’s supporters argue that the charges against him are atypical and that his prosecution was driven by partisan pressure rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. For example, gun charges involving drug addiction are rarely prosecuted, and tax issues like Hunter’s are often resolved through fines and repayment rather than criminal charges.

The political risks of clemency are enormous. Biden has previously stated that he would not pardon his son, a stance the White House reiterated after Trump’s victory in the 2024 election. Reversing this position could be seen as hypocritical and damage the president’s credibility. Moreover, Republicans are likely to use any intervention as evidence of corruption and nepotism, further inflaming partisan tensions.

However, Biden may feel that the political fallout is less consequential now that his political career is effectively over. Trump’s victory and the Democratic Party’s pivot to a new standard-bearer for 2024 have already overshadowed Biden’s legacy. With his time in office nearing its end, Biden might prioritize his family over political considerations, especially given the personal tragedies he has endured.

The specter of Trump looms large over this decision. During his presidency, Trump issued a series of controversial pardons, including for political allies like Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Steve Bannon. He also pardoned war criminals and prominent Republican donors. These actions, while heavily criticized, did not significantly diminish Trump’s support among Republicans.

Biden’s critics will undoubtedly argue that clemency for Hunter is no different from Trump’s abuses of the pardon power. However, Biden’s defenders could counter that Trump’s actions set a precedent for politically motivated clemency and that sparing Hunter from prison is a more justifiable act of compassion than pardoning individuals who undermined the rule of law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s handling of the Hunter Biden investigation has also drawn scrutiny. By appointing David Weiss, a Trump-appointed US attorney, as special counsel, Garland ensured an independent review of the case. However, critics argue that this decision enabled Republicans to weaponize the Justice Department against the president’s family. The collapse of an earlier plea deal for Hunter, which would have resolved his legal issues with minimal consequences, further complicated matters and exposed the case to greater political manipulation.

Commuting Hunter Biden’s sentence could alleviate the burden on the president’s family without erasing the legal consequences of his actions. This approach would acknowledge Hunter’s wrongdoing while sparing him the hardships of imprisonment. It would also avoid the appearance of absolving him entirely, which a full pardon would entail.

However, a commutation might not shield Hunter from further legal jeopardy. Republicans have long alleged that Hunter engaged in other forms of misconduct, such as violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) in connection with his overseas business dealings. A blanket pardon could preemptively address these potential charges but would likely provoke an even greater political backlash.

Ultimately, Biden’s choice will be deeply personal. The Biden family has endured immense tragedy, including the deaths of Biden’s first wife and daughter in a car accident and the loss of his son Beau to cancer. Hunter’s struggles with addiction have been a source of public and private pain for the president. Given these circumstances, it is understandable that Biden might wish to protect his remaining son from further suffering.

At the same time, Biden has spent his career advocating for the rule of law and ethical governance. Any act of clemency for Hunter would need to balance these principles against his personal instincts as a father. This tension underscores the unprecedented nature of the situation and the difficulty of the decision.

The question of whether Joe Biden should pardon his son Hunter is a complex and multifaceted one. It touches on issues of justice, politics, family, and legacy. While the charges against Hunter may have been influenced by partisan pressures, they are nonetheless serious, and any intervention by the president would carry significant risks.

Yet, in the twilight of his presidency, Biden may feel that his most important duty is to his family rather than to his party or his political opponents. A commutation could offer a middle ground, sparing Hunter from prison while preserving some accountability. Whatever Biden decides, it will undoubtedly be one of the most consequential and personal choices of his life.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel