NBC News has reported that President Joe Biden’s public declarations about not pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, may have been part of a deliberate strategy to navigate the political and personal fallout of the situation. According to sources close to the matter, the president had been considering a pardon for Hunter as early as June, despite repeatedly and emphatically denying it.

Following Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges in June, President Biden faced mounting questions about whether he would use his presidential pardon powers to shield his son from legal consequences. At the time, Biden’s response was clear and direct: “I will not pardon him.”

This stance was reiterated by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who told reporters as recently as last month that the president’s position had not wavered. “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is ‘no,’” she stated.

However, NBC News now reports that Biden privately discussed the possibility of a pardon with senior aides shortly after Hunter’s conviction. Two sources familiar with the internal conversations revealed that while the president maintained a public stance of non-intervention, the idea of a pardon “remained on the table.”

The report suggests that the public denials were not merely a refusal to answer the question but rather a calculated move. The president and his advisors reportedly decided that maintaining a hardline stance against a pardon was politically advantageous—even if it didn’t reflect the reality of their ongoing deliberations.

For Biden, the decision to publicly reject the idea of a pardon likely served dual purposes. First, it allowed him to distance himself from accusations of favoritism or nepotism at a time when Republicans were increasing scrutiny of his administration’s alleged “two-tier justice system.” Second, it bought time for his team to assess the fallout of such a decision, all while deflecting immediate criticism.

Now, with his term winding down and no re-election campaign to face, Biden has moved forward with the pardon—a choice some critics view as the culmination of a plan to shield his son while minimizing political costs.

The revelation that Biden’s public statements about the pardon were at odds with his private considerations has sparked fresh criticism. Opponents argue that the president’s actions erode public trust, painting him as willing to mislead the American people for personal gain.

“This is a betrayal of the public’s trust,” said one Republican lawmaker. “The president’s words were clear—until they weren’t. This raises questions about what else he may be misleading the country about.”

Supporters, however, argue that Biden’s decision reflects a father’s love and loyalty, underscoring the deeply personal nature of the issue. “This is a man standing by his son during a difficult time,” said one Democratic strategist. “People may not like it, but it’s human.”

With Hunter Biden now pardoned, the president faces the challenge of addressing the broader implications of his decision. For critics, this marks another chapter in what they see as a pattern of political favoritism. For allies, it’s a reminder of the personal challenges leaders face in balancing public duty and family loyalty.

Either way, the revelation that Biden’s public denials were part of a calculated plan is certain to fuel debates about transparency, accountability, and the limits of presidential power in the months to come.

SOURCE: NBC NEWS

In a fiery call to action, newly appointed California Senator Adam Schiff (D) urged his colleagues in the Senate on Sunday to reject Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI director. This latest salvo in Schiff’s long-standing feud with Patel underscores their deeply entrenched political rivalry, which dates back to explosive revelations about surveillance abuses during the Obama administration.

Patel, a former Trump administration official, first clashed with Schiff in 2017 when he played a key role in exposing alleged misconduct by members of the outgoing Obama administration. Specifically, Patel helped uncover the misuse of intelligence tools to “unmask” the identities of Americans caught on foreign wiretaps—a controversial practice. This revelation led to widespread criticism of the prosecution of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, over debunked allegations of collusion with Russia.

As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, Schiff vehemently opposed Patel’s findings. He authored a memo attempting to justify the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. However, a subsequent Department of Justice Inspector General report discredited Schiff’s defense, validating Republican concerns about FBI overreach in its use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Patel’s connection to Trump made him a recurring target during Schiff’s leadership of high-profile investigations. During Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, which Schiff spearheaded, Democrats floated unsubstantiated claims that Patel had acted as a secret “back channel” to Russia. Schiff’s impeachment report even cited phone records between Patel and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, though no evidence of wrongdoing emerged.

Schiff’s pursuit of Patel continued with the January 6 Committee, where he again sought to tie Patel to nefarious activities. The committee ultimately found no wrongdoing, only releasing Patel’s closed-door testimony after considerable delay—a move critics argued was politically motivated.

The Biden administration’s nomination of Patel to lead the FBI has reignited tensions. Schiff contends that Patel’s past criticisms of the media and government officials signal an intent to pursue partisan prosecutions. Patel, however, has consistently maintained that individuals who broke the law in efforts to undermine the Trump presidency—whether in government or media—should face accountability.

For his part, Patel has accused Schiff of abusing his power as a member of Congress, citing Schiff’s role in perpetuating the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative and his mishandling of evidence collected during the January 6 Committee investigation. Patel has also criticized Schiff for violating defendants’ rights by failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence.

Schiff’s opposition to Patel coincides with broader scrutiny of the Biden administration. As of Monday morning, Schiff had yet to address President Joe Biden’s controversial pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Critics argue that Schiff’s refusal to question Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, weakens his prior claims that Trump’s request for a Ukraine investigation was baseless.

The Senate faces a pivotal decision on Patel’s nomination, one that could reshape the FBI’s leadership and direction. While Schiff’s opposition reflects ongoing partisan battles, it also underscores broader divisions in Washington over accountability and the rule of law. Whether Patel’s nomination proceeds or stalls, the debate surrounding his candidacy highlights the enduring polarization in American politics.

In a surprising turn of events, President Joe Biden has decided to grant a pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, a move expected to be announced Sunday night, according to a senior White House official with direct knowledge of the matter. The decision marks a significant reversal for the president, who has previously stated on multiple occasions that he would not use his executive powers to pardon or commute his son’s sentences.

The pardon will encompass both Hunter Biden’s federal gun charges, for which he was convicted, and his guilty plea on federal tax evasion charges. The gun charge sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 12, with the tax evasion sentencing set for Dec. 16.

Sources within the administration revealed that President Biden made the decision over the weekend after extensive discussions with senior aides. The pardon comes as Biden, 82, nears the end of his presidency with no reelection campaign to consider. Publicly, the president has consistently distanced himself from the idea of granting clemency.

In June, following Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges, Biden unequivocally stated, “I will not pardon him,” reiterating his commitment to letting the judicial process play out. First Lady Jill Biden echoed this sentiment during a June interview, emphasizing respect for the judicial system.

Behind Closed Doors

Despite these public assertions, insiders say the possibility of a pardon has been under consideration since Hunter’s June conviction. Two individuals familiar with the internal discussions noted that while Biden publicly denied the idea, the option remained on the table, with close aides advising against making any premature decisions.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre consistently reinforced the president’s stance during press briefings, most recently stating earlier this month that the position remained unchanged.

The pardon decision comes as Republicans continue to accuse the Biden family of corruption and allege preferential treatment by the Justice Department. GOP criticism escalated after a plea deal involving Hunter collapsed in July, leading Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel in the case.

The move to pardon Hunter Biden has drawn mixed reactions. Critics argue it undermines the justice system, while supporters, including former White House Counsel Neil Eggleston, argue it’s within the president’s constitutional authority. Eggleston told NBC News, “The clemency power has few limitations and certainly would extend to a Hunter Biden pardon.”

The president’s relationship with Hunter Biden, who has struggled with addiction and legal troubles, has been a focal point of political attacks. Biden has often defended his son, describing him as “one of the brightest, most decent men I know.”

While the pardon eliminates the prospect of prison time for Hunter, it undoubtedly reignites political controversy, especially as Republicans scrutinize the Justice Department’s handling of the case.

As the announcement looms, the decision underscores the tension between personal loyalty and public accountability, setting the stage for heated debates in the weeks to come.