UNBIASED - December 2, 2024: President Biden Pardons Hunter; Here's What You Need to Know. Trump Nominates Kash Patel for FBI Director, Former Detective Commits Suicide Ahead of Trial, and More.

Episode Date: December 2, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: President Biden Pardons Hunter Biden; Here's What You Need to Know (0:27) Presidential Pardon Q&A (7:23) Trump Nominates Kash Patel for FBI Director (11:04) Former Kansas Detective Commits Suicide Ahead of Rape Trial (15:11) Supreme Court Hears Vape Case (16:51) Quick Hitters: US to Provide $725M in Aid to Ukraine, Intel CEO to Retire, Israeli Military Confirms Death of American-Israeli Citizen, Stoli Vodka Files for Bankruptcy, Trump Threatens 100% Tariffs on BRICS Countries (19:51) Daily Critical Thinking Exercise (22:18) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Monday, December 2nd, and this is your daily news rundown. In today's episode, we'll discuss President Biden granting a pardon to his son, Hunter, an e-cigarette case that was argued at the Supreme Court today, Trump's nomination of Cash Patel, and more. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. Last night, President Biden issued a pardon for his son Hunter.

As we discussed a few months ago, Hunter was convicted by a jury of three federal gun charges, specifically lying about his drug use on a form when purchasing a firearm, and then separately, he pled guilty to nine federal tax charges, which stemmed from his failure to file and pay taxes from 2016 to 2019, tax evasion, and filing of false return. In the firearm case, his sentencing was scheduled for December 12, where he faced up to 25 years in prison, and in the tax case, his sentencing was scheduled for December 16, where he faced up to 25 years in prison. And in the tax case, his sentencing was scheduled for December 16th, where he faced up to 17 years. Now, it's unlikely that he would have seen any jail time anyway.

Same reason that Trump wouldn't have seen any jail time has had his sentencing gone forward. There's just too many security issues, both are first time offenders, etc. However, now that Hunter has been pardoned, he won't be sentenced at all. He won't face any consequences of the crime and he will have all of his rights restored that he wouldn't have otherwise had if he remained a convicted felon. So let's talk about what a presidential pardon is, what it means, and then I'll answer a few of your questions.

The Constitution gives the president the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment. A lot of you asked me where the President gets the authority to grant pardons and how it's legal. That's your answer. The Constitution. State governors, by the way, also have pardoning power, but that's obviously not what we're talking about here. So there are different types of pardons. You have full pardons, partial pardons, absolute pardons, and conditional pardons. A full pardon, which is what was granted here, unconditionally absolves the person of the conviction and the conviction's consequences.

A partial pardon, as the name implies, only relieves the person from some of the crime's punishment and then an absolute pardon is granted without any conditions and a conditional pardon, again, as the name implies, typically has some sort of condition attached to it. Notably, there are some limitations on pardons, not a lot, but some. So presidential pardons generally apply only

to offenses against the United States and cannot apply to state or municipal crimes. Additionally, only crimes that have already been committed can be pardoned. Future crimes cannot. So a pardon can be granted at any point after a crime has been committed, whether that's before charges are even filed, which is otherwise known as a preemptive pardon, before trial starts, after trial, but before sentencing, after sentencing, really at any point in the legal and judicial process, just so long as the crime itself has already been committed. So with that in mind, let's read President Biden's statement, which says in part, quote, today I signed a pardon for my son Hunter.

From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department's decision-making, and I kept my word even as I watched my son being selectively and unfairly prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son. And that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter who has been five and a half years sober even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they've tried to break me and there's no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough. For my entire career, I have followed a simple principle. Just tell the American people the truth. They will be fair-minded. Here's the truth. I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this

process and it led to a miscarriage of justice. And once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would have come to this decision." Now, what's interesting here is the actual pardon reads, A full and unconditional pardon for those offenses against the United States, which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1st, 2024. Now, the illegal actions at the center of the tax charges and gun charges took place

between 2016 and 2019, but the pardon specifically covers 2014 to 2024. Now, there's two potential explanations here. One could be as simple as the president rounding up to 10 years and granting the pardon for a 10-year period. Do presidents have to grant pardons for 10 year time periods? No, it's up to the president to determine that time frame if there even is a specified time frame but we'll get into that more in another question. The other potential

explanation and the more likely explanation is that President Biden wanted to cover any potential illegal actions that Hunter took as part of his foreign business dealings. As we know, the House Oversight Committee has been investigating Hunter for years over allegations that Hunter's role in the Ukrainian gas company Burisma financially benefited President Biden while President Biden was VP. The first of those allegations took place in February 2014. So by pardoning Hunter for any potential crimes he committed between January 1st 2014 and December 1st 2024, the pardon covers any potential illegal acts that

Hunter took that stemmed from his foreign business dealings. Now when I posted a question box to Instagram last night, many of you asked how the president can pardon crimes that may have been committed. But again, if we look at the constitutional limits on the pardoning power, pardons can happen at any time, even before charges are filed against a defendant, just as long as the crime has already been committed. Therefore, any potential crimes that were committed between January 1st, 2014 and December 1st, 2024 are covered here because they would have already been committed, whether proven or not, whether charged or not, it doesn't matter.

In fact, if you think about a defendant being charged with, let's say, federal tax evasion, that defendant is innocent until proven guilty, right? In our justice system, there is a presumption of innocence. So there is really no difference between pardoning someone for a crime that they've been charged with, but not convicted of, and pardoning someone like the president did here for a crime they quote unquote may have committed,

but haven't been charged with because in both instances, the defendant may have committed the crime, technically, right? But let's dive into some other questions. So Lance asked, has this ever happened before a president pardoning such a close relative? A son, no. But President Clinton pardoned his half-brother, Roger

Clinton, before he left office in January 2001. And Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, his daughter's father in law, before he left office in 2021. Another user asked, can pardons be reversed? No, a pardon cannot be undone. Brighton asked, is he pardoned for all of his crimes or just the gun charges? This pardon applies to all crimes committed between January 1st, 2014 and December 1st, 2024. So that includes the gun charges, the tax charges, and any other possible federal crimes that were committed in that time frame. Rachel asked, does this pardon make it so he can't be charged with anything,

even if it's something new? Again, his pardon makes it so he can't be charged with anything that he committed or may have committed between January 1st, 2014 and December 1st, 2024. However, if he were to commit any crimes today or in the future, his pardon would not extend to those crimes and he could be charged. Also, I saw someone ask whether the pardon would extend to all possible crimes committed in that 10-year time frame, like let's just say as examples rape or murder. Hunter has never been accused of these things, this is just an example. The answer is no. Remember, the presidential pardoning power only extends to federal crimes. Crimes like rape and murder are more often than

not state crimes, so they would not be covered by the pardon. Jonah asked, didn't Biden say he would never pardon Hunter? Yes. In an interview on June 6th with David Muir, Muir had asked him if he would accept the jury's outcome. no matter what it was. This is while Hunter's firearm trial was ongoing. And President Biden responded, yes. Muir then asked President Biden if he had ruled out a pardon. And President Biden responded again, yes. About a week after that interview and two days after the jury returned a guilty verdict in the firearm case, the president said at a news conference, quote, I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.

And quote, Edward asked, is there not a conflicts of interest clause for a pardon? No, there are only two limitations. As I stated, one, it has to apply to crimes against the United States. So federal crimes and to the crime or crimes have to have already been committed. You can't pardon future crimes, but no, there is no such thing as a conflicts of interest clause or anything of the sort.

Mari asks, is it normal for a pardon to be a time period instead of a specific crime? It really depends on the pardon. It'll either cover a specific period of time or a specific crime or set of crimes. It just depends on the individual circumstances. As examples, when President Ford pardoned President Nixon, the pardon covered a specific period of time, which was between January 20th, 1969 and August 9th, 1974. On the other hand, when Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, that pardon

specifically applied to his one conviction. Camillo asked, can a president pardon himself? That we don't know. It's never happened before and if it did, it's likely a question that the Supreme Court would have to answer. A president can certainly try and from there the issue would just be challenged in the courts. And finally, I don't have a name for this person, but one user asked, how can he pardon if not a federal crime? All of the crimes that issue here were federal crimes. These are not state crimes. The firearm charges and tax-related charges are all federal. So hopefully that Q&A cleared up some of your questions. Let's take a quick break and when we come back, we'll discuss

Trump's nomination of Cash Patel, the vape case before the Supreme Court, and more. Over the weekend, Trump nominated Cash Patel to replace the current FBI Director, Christopher Wray. So let's talk a little bit about the role of FBI Director and then a little bit about Patel personally. The FBI Director essentially leads the FBI and serves a 10-year term. This position is subject to Senate confirmation, so if confirmed, Patel would oversee the FBI's roughly 37,000 employees. Because the FBI is an agency within the DOJ, the FBI director

reports to the Attorney General of the United States, who's otherwise known as the head of the DOJ. And the FBI director is largely responsible for ensuring that cases and operations are handled properly. In Trump's previous administration, the first FBI director was James Comey, who was dismissed by Trump and replaced in 2017 with acting FBI director Andy McCabe, and then Chris Ray ultimately replaced McCabe in August of 2017. So Ray, which is the current FBI director, was actually the FBI director during Trump's first administration and throughout the entirety of Biden's administration.

But if Patel is confirmed, he would replace Ray, but only once Trump either fires Ray or Ray resigns because technically his tenure term doesn't end until 2027. Now a little bit about Patel personally, he's 44 years old from New York and worked as a public defender in Florida for about nine years before moving to DC to work as a federal prosecutor in the National Security Division of the DOJ. At the DOJ, Patel oversaw the prosecution of criminals aligned with Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terror groups. He also served as the DOJ liaison officer to the Joint Special Operations Command

during operations against high value terrorism targets. During this time, specifically in 2017, he was awarded by the Obama administration for his prosecution and conviction of 12 terrorists responsible for the World Cup bombings in 2010. In 2018, he served as an aide to Devin Nunez, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee at the time, and Patel played a key role in the Nunes

memo, which was this four-page document released in 2018 that alleged improper use of surveillance by the FBI and DOJ in the 2016 Russian interference investigation. From there, Patel became deputy assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism on the White House's National Security Council and was put in charge of the Pentagon transition effort for Trump's first term overseeing coordination with the incoming Biden-Harris administration. Patel currently sits on the board of Trump Media and Technology Group Corporation, which is the parent company of Truth Social, and

he also founded a non-profit called The Cash Foundation, which according to its website works to quote, support educational and legal efforts needed to facilitate government transparency, end quote. Through interviews and statements, Patel has signaled his determination to change the FBI and reshape its mission by calling for limiting FBI authority and a quote-unquote comprehensive house cleaning of the DOJ. In his 2023 book, which is titled Government Gangsters, The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy, Patel wrote in part, quote, things are bad, there's no denying it. The FBI has gravely abused its power, threatening not only the rule of law,

but the very foundations of self-government at the root of our democracy. But this isn't the end of the story. Change is possible at the FBI and desperately needed. The fact is we need a federal agency that investigates federal crimes, and that agency will always be at risk of having its powers abused." will always be at risk of having its powers abused." End quote. He further suggested that quote unquote corrupt actors be fired and advocated for quote unquote aggressive congressional oversight over the agency, complete overhauls to special councils

and moving the FBI out of Washington DC. So that's a little bit about Cash Patel. And if you're looking to get caught up on other picks and nominations, I have covered about 16 or so since the election. So you can always tune into older episodes to get caught up there. A 71 year old former Kansas police detective who was about to stand trial on charges that he raped two women decades ago was found dead in his home this morning.

Roger Golubski failed to show up for jury selection this morning in his long-awaited trial in Topeka, Kansas, which prompted an arrest warrant and search of his home, and that is where he was found dead. The allegations against Golubski date back to the 1980s and came to light after a civil lawsuit was filed against him and his former department, which alleged that he framed a Kansas City teenager for a double murder in 1994. The man that filed that case was eventually released from prison after serving more than 23 years, and he did settle with county officials for $12.5 million. But that case is what prompted a pretty under wraps investigation into Golubski and the

department. The investigation led federal authorities to file two indictments against Golubski in the fall of 2022, one stemming from the rape of a woman between 1998 and 2001, and another stemming from the rape of a second woman after her sons were arrested between 1999 and 2002. Both of those women were black, which also led to deprivation of civil rights charges against Golubski as well. Notably, prosecutors had acknowledged in pretrial motions that they didn't have much evidence against Golubski beyond the word of his alleged victims and said that the credibility of his

accusers would be the quote unquote sole centerpiece of the case against him. So following the news of Golubski's death this morning, which was deemed to be a suicide, the judge dismissed the case at the request of prosecutors. And the Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case called FDA versus Wages and White Lion Investments. The justices must now decide whether the FDA's denial of two companies' applications to sell flavored liquids for use in e-cigarettes was impermissible.

So to understand the issue at the center of this case, we just have to quickly go over the FDA's approval process for companies that are wanting to sell tobacco products. The simple explanation is this. Under federal law, FDA authorization is required before a new tobacco product can be sold, and among other things, tobacco companies have to show that any health benefits of the product outweigh the risks of bringing the new product to market. When the law

was enacted in 2009 e-cigarettes did not exist like they exist today so in 2016 the FDA went ahead and deemed e-cigarettes otherwise known as vapes to be tobacco products subject to review under the same federal law. This of course meant that e-cigarettes were subject to the same review as traditional tobacco products. And again, among other things, e-cigarette companies would have to show that the health benefits of their product outweigh the risks of bringing that new product to the market. So in 2020, two e-cigarette companies filed FDA

applications for e-cigarette liquid products with flavors such as sour grape, pink lemonade, and crème brûlée. And these flavors had names like Jimmy the Juice Man, Peachy Strawberry, and Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies. The FDA ultimately denied these applications, along with other applications by various other companies because it found that the potential benefits of helping adult smokers to quit smoking with e-cigarettes do not outweigh the potential health risks to young people, which the FDA said are the ones that are most attracted to these flavored vapes. So in denying the applications, the FDA cited the findings that nearly one in five high school students

and almost one in 20 middle school students used e-cigarettes in 2020, making e-cigarettes, quote, the most widely used tobacco product among youth by far, end quote. The agency also cited the findings that youth users consistently cited flavor as a top reason for why they vape.

The two companies asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the FDA's denial of their applications. And in January, the appellate court ruled in their favor. The panel of judges found that the FDA had impermissibly denied their applications because, as the court said, the denial was arbitrary and capricious because the FDA failed to consider plans

that were submitted by the companies to prevent underage access and use. The FDA then appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court in March and here we are. So again, the question that the justices have to answer is whether the FDA failed to correctly consider the company's requests and issued an impermissible denial, which was arbitrary and capricious. The justices will issue their decision by the end of theirissible denial, which was arbitrary and capricious. The justices will issue their decision by the end of their current term, which ends in June 2025. And now for some quick hitters. The United States is reportedly preparing to send Ukraine another $725 million in military assistance,

which includes counter drone systems. This military assistance doesn't really come as much of a surprise because President Biden has promised to spend all of the military assistance funds from Congress, which were approved earlier this year for Ukraine before the end of his administration. And that approved funding included about 7.1 billion in weapons that would be drawn down from the Pentagon's stockpiles. In some other news, the CEO of Intel, Pat Gelsinger, announced his retirement today. Bloomberg reported that Gelsinger was given the option at a meeting with the board to either retire or be removed, and he opted for the former. During Gelsinger's most recent tenure at Intel, its stock dropped 61%.

The Israeli military announced the death of a 21-year-old American Israeli citizen named Omer Maxim Nutra of Long Island, New York. Nutra served as a tank platoon commander for the Israeli military and his family thought that he may have been being held hostage in Gaza since the war started. However, today the Israeli foreign minister announced that Nutra died on October 7th during the attack. The foreign minister did not say though how it came to that conclusion. Stoly Group, the owner of Stoly Vodka, filed for bankruptcy today, citing financial difficulties. The founder of Stoly was actually exiled from Russia in 2000 due to his opposition to Putin. And since then, the company has spent millions of dollars in its very long-term legal battle against

the Russian government. And finally Trump posted to Truth Social on Saturday that he would impose 100% tariffs on BRICS countries that are trying to move away from the US dollar. His post read in part quote, we require a commitment from these countries that they will neither create a new BRICS currency nor back any other currency to replace the mighty US dollar. Or they will face 100% tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful US economy. They can go find another sucker. There is no chance that the BRICS will replace the US dollar in international trade and any country that tries it should wave

Goodbye to America and quote and if you do want to learn more about tariffs and how they work Tune in to Tuesday's episode from last week because I did a full deep dive there and a Q&A Okay now on to critical thinking which is our last segment of the day for today's segment I want to revisit the presidential pardoning power for the first part of the segment. I want you to test yourself a little bit and ask yourself if you're okay with Biden's pardon. I want you to ask yourself whether you'd be okay with Trump

pardoning one of his children once he takes office and why or why not similarly if you're not okay with Biden's pardon. I want you to ask yourself whether you would also take issue with Trump pardoning one of his children once he takes office and why or why not. You have to be able to put your biases aside. We have to practice that and you know, learn to hold people to the same standard. Now moving away from the comparisons, let's think critically about the actual presidential pardoning power.

As we know, the Constitution really only limits the power in two ways. It has to be a federal crime and it has to be a crime that has already been committed. Do you believe there should be more limitations on the president's pardoning power or less and why or why not? If you believe there should be more, what might some of those limitations look like? Maybe there's, just to give you some ideas, maybe there's a statute of limitations where a president can't pardon someone for crimes committed more than X number of years ago. What would that look like? Maybe only certain federal crimes can be pardoned. And in that case, which federal crimes would you put in the eligible for pardoning bucket and which crimes would you put in the not

eligible for pardoning bucket? And then finally, try to come up with arguments for and against checking the presidential pardoning power. What I mean by that is in our government, we have checks and balances. So if a president, let's just say issues an executive order, that executive order can be challenged in the courts and the courts can undo the executive order. Pardons do not work that way. They do not get checked by the courts. So what are some arguments for and against implementing some sort of check on presidential pardons? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a great night and I will talk to you tomorrow.