Federal judge denounces President Biden's pardon, saying he misrepresented son's criminal case

The judge who presided over Hunter Biden's federal tax case in Los Angeles criticized 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 faulted Hunter Biden's lawyers for failing to file a copy of the pardon signed by President Biden and further challenged the president's explanation for the pardon, saying it maligned federal law enforcement and the judicial system.

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 pardon his son for any and all offenses in an 11-year period after saying repeatedly he wouldn't.

Read more: President Biden pardons his son, claiming Hunter Biden was unfairly prosecuted

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 also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted Hunter Biden 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.

Read more: Now pardoned, Hunter Biden looks at future: Writing? Podcasting? 'Healing,' says friend

"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, but that he would not terminate the case until the pardon signed by President Biden was formally submitted.

Hunter Biden's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.

Separately, the judge questioned the structure of the pardon, noting that it covered conduct "through Dec. 1" but was signed on the same 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.

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.