Says the president should pardon Trump

Sen. Joe Manchin (IW.Va.) has commented on President Joe Biden offering his son Hunter Biden a blanket pardon, shielding him from criminal gun and tax charges. The soon-to-retire independent who caucuses with Democrats wasn’t overly critical of the move by the president, who had previously promised not to pardon his son – but he did put forward an unusual idea.

“As a father, I don’t know a father who wouldn’t have done the same thing,” Manchin told CNN. “What I would have done differently, my recommendations as a lawyer would have been: Why don’t you go ahead and pardon Donald Trump for all of his allegations?” He argued that the move would have been “much, much more balanced, if you will,” and added: “All I say is wipe them out.”

On Sunday, Biden announced that he had signed a pardon for his son. “Today I signed a pardon for my son Hunter,” Biden wrote in a statement. “From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere in the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I have kept my word, even as I watched my son be selectively and unfairly prosecuted .”

Hunter Biden was convicted of federal weapons charges earlier this year and later pleaded guilty to federal tax charges. The president told ABC News’ David Muir in June that he would not pardon his son because of his conviction, and answered “yes” when asked if he would rule out a pardon. Shortly afterwards he reiterated this stance. “I won’t forgive him,” he said said while speaking at an event a week after his interview with Muir.

Trump doesn’t necessarily need a pardon from Biden to avoid legal trouble – his 2024 election victory has likely already ensured that.

It has long been Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. Last week, Special Counsel Jack Smith announced that he would drop his criminal election interference and classified information cases against the president-elect based on Justice Department guidelines.

Smith wrote that the department’s Office of Legal Counsel has determined that “its prior opinions regarding the constitutional prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting president apply to this situation and that this prosecution must therefore be dismissed prior to the defendant’s inauguration.”