MARY REICHARD, HOST:It’s Tuesday the 3rd of December.
You’re listening to WORLD Radio and we’re glad you’re along with us today. Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard
NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. As we said at the top of the program, today isn’t just any Tuesday—it’s Giving Tuesday. We’re asking those who benefit from WORLD but have never made a gift of support to make today the day.
REICHARD: Right, we're asking for first-ever gifts of support to strengthen WORLD's mission of sound journalism grounded in facts and Biblical truth. You know, I really like the concept of Giving Tuesday. Right after Thanksgiving , we see offer after offer to spend money on merchandise (and, hey, we do it, too) and it's all directed to gift giving, which is great. But I also think it's right and good to have a day like this where the focus is on supporting the things we believe in.
EICHER: Exactly. Next week, we’ll kick off our year-end Giving Drive, as we always do. It’s a critical time since most of our funding comes in these final weeks. But before we kick that off, we do want to make a concerted effort aimed at those who've been benefiting from this journalism that we provide as a free public service and, I'll stress, if you've never before given in response to these semi-annual drives, we ask that you do take that step today.
REICHARD: The place to go is W-N-G-dot-org-slash-GivingTuesday. Again, that’s W-N-G-dot-org-slash-GivingTuesday, where you can make a secure, online gift.
EICHER: So this year, I'm making a pledge to join with every new donor who makes a gift today—meaning that for each new donor, I personally will kick in a dollar. I'm not a wealthy person, so I'm not able to do what some of our more capable donors have done in the past and offer matching gifts. This is more in my ability, that I give one dollar for every new donor, today only.
REICHARD: I like that—kind of like a dunking booth! Let’s soak Nick!
EICHER: There you go. So if you like me, make a gift—and if you don't, yeah, make a gift anyway and you can imagine me in the dunking booth. Good image. But seriously, I do have to put my money where my mouth is. Do I believe in this journalistic project or don't I? Well, I do, and I hope you'll join me.
First up on The World and Everything in It: a presidential pardon. On Sunday evening, President Joe Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon for his son Hunter Biden, covering all crimes going back to 2014.
This comes after months of saying he would not issue a pardon.
Why the change, and what does it mean legally?
Joining us now is Ilya Shapiro. He’s Director of Constitutional Studies for the Manhattan Institute.
REICHARD: Ilya, good morning.
ILYA SHAPIRO: Good morning. You know, you asked, what does it mean legally? There's nothing complicated about that. It means that Hunter Biden can't be prosecuted by federal prosecutors, because the president only has authority over federal prosecutions going back 11 years. That the length of time is remarkable, but the legal effect is no prosecution immunity for anything that he's done in that time.
REICHARD: Well, let's talk about the context a little bit, in case people are forgetting, where did those federal cases against Hunter Biden stand before his dad pardoned him?
SHAPIRO: Well, he's already been convicted both of gun crimes, having guns while addicted to illegal substances against federal law and tax evasion, various tax crimes, two separate prosecutions. He was due to be sentenced in coming months. That's where it stood, and now those convictions are going to be wiped out.
REICHARD: Now he hasn't served one moment of time for any of these crimes so far. Is that correct?
SHAPIRO: That's right, he hasn't been sentenced yet.
REICHARD: So most pardons are issued after the person has served at least some time. How does this pardon compare to other presidential pardons in terms of breadth and timing?
SHAPIRO: It seems like every presidency has some pardons that are politically dubious or that, you know, don't seem quite right. I mean, there's nothing legally wrong with it, but whether, whether pardoning supporters, whether, I mean lots of things presidents get, get criticized for how they use or allegedly misuse the pardon power, including during lame ducks. So this is not the first time that's something that the timing is happening, certainly the first time that there's a close member of the family involved.
REICHARD: Now this raises the question of, what is the purpose of the power to pardon, and here it does seem to be to circumvent the justice system. What did the founders intend?
SHAPIRO: Well, this was meant to be one final safety valve for abuses of the legal system. Say, if there's some injustice that has taken place, then the executive can have that pardon power. And this is nothing new. There's a lot new to the way that the U.S. Constitution set out a system of government, presidential authority, dividing power, all of that. But the idea of an executive having a pardon power is not new. Kings had it, elected governors had it. You know, it's just a it's just meant as a safety valve. And interestingly, unlike most other powers, it's completely unreviewable. So there's no appeal. There's no further reconsideration. That's it. Once the President signs it, that's it.
REICHARD: I think the pardon that most people, at least of my generation, remembers, is the pardon of Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford. How does this compare to that pardon?
SHAPIRO: That's the one that's the most sweeping. And so if there's a parallel, it's a high profile, you know, very high name recognition, the president's son versus the former president, as opposed to, you know, Bill Clinton got a lot of criticism for pardoning Mark Rich, for example, one of his donors. Nobody remembers who that is anymore. You know, there are these kind of pardons for cronies, but you're right, the Richard Nixon pardon because of how profile it was, and also because of the breadth of time. Ford pardoned him for any violations that he might have done over I forget what the exact time period, whether it was his entire presidency or some longer period, but that's why people are drawing out that comparison.
REICHARD: I think it was just for his Nixon's term in office, which brings to mind this pardon of Hunter Biden goes back to January 1, 2014 and I don't think that that is a coincidental date. Are you aware of what the significance of that is?
SHAPIRO: Yeah, I think it was April of 2014 that that Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian company with reporting now that it was done to not because of his business acumen, but because of access to the “big guy” Joe Biden, who was then Vice President. Now interestingly, with this pardon, that means that Hunter cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination if, for example, there are prosecutions against Joe Biden for his activities as vice president. There's no official immunity for that. Now, Joe Biden can thank the Supreme Court for saying that there is immunity for presidential official acts, but not when you're vice president or not a president during that you know, the Trump's first term. So one curious wrinkle is that if there is any prosecution over Joe Biden's own activities before he became president Hunter, Biden could now be subject to testify.
REICHARD: Oh interesting. Why do you think President Biden changed his mind and issued this pardon?
SHAPIRO: I mean, you read the statement, he thinks it was a miscarriage of justice. Of course, it's his own justice department that was prosecuting his son, so perhaps it would have been easier just to lay off on those prosecutions. But ultimately, I think, you know, you don't have to think too hard. It's the father and a son. I think it's eminently understandable why. You know, when you have a close relative, if you have the power to not allow them to go to jail you do that doesn't mean that's not a misuse of presidential authority, but the human motivation is eminently understandable, going back to Shakespeare or even the ancient Greek playwrights,
REICHARD: But it does lead the common people out here to think I'd be in jail for doing this very thing. Does it not foster a sense of disrespect for the judicial system?
SHAPIRO: Absolutely. Two different standards. Now, again, there's nothing illegal about this. It's a lawful use of the pardon power, but it's it politically stinks, and going forward, as Trump takes office again, I think any criticisms of his use of the pardon power, whether for January 6 protesters, pro life protesters that have been jailed, or others, that kind of criticism is going to fall on deaf ears for the majority of the American people.
REICHARD: Ilya, is there any other aspect of the story that you think is being overlooked or that we need to pay more attention to?
SHAPIRO: I mean, I'd look to see how media personalities are reacting defenders of the rule of law and the supporters of Kamala Harris as having we need to elect the Democrats. They're the party of the rule of law to save democracy, et cetera. Politicians use their political power for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn't matter whether you're a red team, Blue team, so the gaslighting about who is good and pure and has clean hands doesn't go very far.
REICHARD: Ilya Shapiro is a constitutional scholar and Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow. Ilya, thanks so much for your time!
SHAPIRO: Thank you.
WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.
Please wait while we load the latest comments...
Comments
Please register, subscribe, or log in to comment on this article.