Darrell Castle talks about the decision of President Joe Biden to issue a blanket, all-encompassing pardon for his son Hunter despite repeatedly promising he would not do so.

Transcription / Notes

TAINTED LEGACY?

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 6th of December in the year of our Lord 2024. I will be talking about the decision of President Joe Biden to issue a blanket, all-encompassing pardon for his son Hunter. The pardon covers all acts known and unknown including the crimes for which he was convicted and the crimes for which he pled guilty as well as any crimes from murder to treason which are currently unproven but which may have occurred between January 1st 2014 and December 1st 2024.

So, the pardon is now a done deal. The most surprising thing about it is that it was not surprising and many, including me, thought the president was lying when he repeatedly said he would never pardon his son. Hunter was convicted of crimes and pled guilty to others but none of those addressed what might be in that laptop portrayed to us by the media as Russian disinformation. It doesn’t matter anymore does it? There is no longer a reason to wonder if the laptop contained any secrets about influence peddling by Hunter’s father, the big guy. Whether or not that last statement is completely true or whether there is wiggle room to some extent is up to congress.

The President said repeatedly that he would not pardon his son but in true Biden fashion, he did. Pardons reside with presidents and governors who are supposed to use them to correct an injustice, but sometimes they are used for other purposes such as rewarding a political donor or to avoid hostile testimony from the one pardoned. That brings me to why this is up to congress to some extent at least. If congress wanted to conduct hearings into influence peddling by then former president Biden it could call Hunter to testify.

If a person is questioned under oath about something that could possibly implicate him in a crime he can always take shelter under the 5th Amendment. In that event he would respond to the question by saying I decline to answer on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me or he could simply say I plead the 5th. He could then not be held in contempt for not answering the question but if he had been previously pardoned the 5th amendment protection would no longer be available to him.

Since he has been pardoned in such a blanket all-encompassing pardon, Hunter would no longer be subject to criminal charges so fear of self-incrimination would no longer be valid. If he were, for example, asked if he shared any of the proceeds from his influence peddling, his bribery, etc. with his father, the big guy, and he refused to answer he could be held in contempt and sent to jail. If he lied, under oath, and his statement was later proven to be a lie, then he could be prosecuted for perjury, which is a felony. Congress could, therefore, make things hard for President Biden but I doubt that would ever happen.

Hunter was convicted of a felony and pled guilty to other felonies, but he was pardoned before he served a day of any possible sentence. We are told that this is merely an example of a father looking after the welfare of his son. I would argue that it is more an example of a father looking after himself and anyone else involved in his corruption of the various agencies of the federal government but in any case I imagine there are many sons sitting in prison who would be free if their fathers had been able to issue a ten-year-get-out of-jail free pass to them for any crime, even treason.

Biden, of course, couldn’t do one honest thing and say look I know I said repeatedly that I would not pardon him, but I saw my only living son facing prison and I just could not let that happen. Even that statement would have been another lie, but not as embarrassingly bad as the one he told.