Albuquerque City Councilor Renee Grout has introduced for city council enactment 3 city ordinances and amendments to make major changes to how the city is dealing  with the homeless encampments.  She has introduced legislation that will change rules about public camping, abandoned shopping carts, and the use of public parks in general.  Grout says the 3 measures are intended to curb the effects of unhoused encampments, make public spaces safer and improve the quality of life of all residents.

The blog article is an analysis of all 3 measures.

AMENDMENTS TO  THE PARKS ORDINANCE

The first amends the existing ordinance on the use of city parks and prohibits camping, fires, shopping carts, and  deals with  use of playground equipment and vandalism. The public encampment regulations further define the prohibitions on public camping in unauthorized areas such as parks, streets and sidewalks.  The changes are  intended to curb littering, vandalism, drug use,  and illegal camping.

The amendments to the Parks Ordinance contain the following prohibitions:

1. No Camping. No person will be allowed to camp or construct or erect any tent, building or other structure whether permanent or temporary, in a park  for the purpose of staying in the park  overnight or be allowed extension of electrical utilities except by written permission of the Mayor. An exception would be allowed for youth organizations camping with adult supervision for one night only and with written permission or a permit  from the Mayor and the  Director of the Parks & Recreation Department.

 

2. Shopping Carts Prohibited.  Shopping carts would be prohibited in all  City parks,  city open spaces, and the parking areas that serve these facilities. Any shopping  cart, whether empty or containing any merchandise or belongings, may be confiscated and either returned to the cart owner, recycled, or otherwise disposed of.

 

3. Wrongful Use of Playground Equipment. Unless otherwise posted, the  use of playground equipment is reserved for children. Adults would be allowed in playground areas or within 50 feet of playground areas only when  accompanied by a child under the age of 12, unless the 50-foot buffer extends  beyond the Park boundary. This buffer may include gazebos, benches, and  tables,

 

4. Children Park Designations. The Mayor may designate certain parksas “Children’s Parks” and restrict access by adults unless they are  accompanied by a child under the age of 12. Users must follow playground  guidelines and restrictions. During park operating hours, no person shall  engage in any conduct that deprives park visitors of the intended use of the  playground equipment.

 

5. Vandalism of Park Grounds. The existing law provides “No person in a park shall damage, cut, carve, transplant or remove any tree or plant or injure the bark or pick the flowers or  seeds, of any tree or plant.”  The ordinance will be amended to provide (in bold and italicized)  that  “No …  person [shall] attach any rope, wire, hammock, or other contrivance to any tree or plant. No person shall damage grass by leaving personal items in grass areas for extended periods.”

 

6. No Feeding of Wildlife. No person in a park shall give or offer or attempt to give to any animal or bird any food, tobacco, alcohol, or other known noxious or injurious substances to any bird or wild animal. Park users shall clean up and  remove all food scraps and wrappers that could attract wild animals.

 

7. No Fires. Fires would only  be allowed in permanent grills  provided by the City for cooking.

 

8. Vending of Merchandise. Vending would be  allowed only  by  licensed vendors in designated areas only with a valid permit from the Department of Parks & Recreation. Food vendors must carry all other permits required by the Environmental Health Department, the Fire Marshal, and any  other regulatory agencies.

 

9. Advertising signs and 2 banners may be allowed only on outfield fences in baseball and softball parks. The “batter’s eye” portion of all outfield fences, defined as the area directly behind the pitcher from the batter’s perspective, shall be kept clear of all  signs, banners, and other visual distractions.

 

• Dog Exercising. Any person may exercise dogs with or without leash in parks designated by the Mayor with times prescribed.

 

The link to review the entire ordinance is here:

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/o-56-673abd707d89b.pdf

Councilor Grout said this about her proposed changes to city park usage ordinance:

“We should be able to go and play catch with the ball, play soccer, have picnics in the park and not worry. Sometimes, people use them to sleep. You know, you can take a nap in the park, that’s fine. But there’s not supposed to be overnight camping. …  Parents should be able to know that the children can run around and play in … playground[s]. There shouldn’t be a fear of stepping on a needle, that has happened. … There have been children that have stepped on needles in parks. … They see people that are passed out in parks. … Our children should not be subject to seeing this in a public park. … We just want our children and our grandchildren and neighbors to be able to enjoy our beautiful, public spaces.”

“SHOPPING CART ABANDONMENT” PREVENTION ORDINANCE

The second ordinance deals with shopping cart theft and abandonment. Shopping carts are stolen from grocery stores and businesses and often used by the homelessness to transport their personal belongings.  Metal shopping carts range in price from anywhere from $159 to $250.

Abandoned shopping carts can pose safety hazards and contribute to neighborhood blight.  This ordinance would make it illegal to possess shopping carts outside of a retailer’s property. Possession of a cart would result in a petty misdemeanor and could include fines or jail time. However, a judge would be able to give a community service sentence instead. The resolution would place far more responsibility on businesses to prevent shopping cart thefts and would require businesses to submit a plan to the city on steps they’re taking to keep carts secure.  The ordinance would allow the city to collect abandoned shopping carts and hold them for up to 30 days before being considered “forfeited.”  Businesses would have 7 days to pick up their shopping carts for a $25 fee. An extra $5 will be tacked on for every day after. Forfeited carts would be recycled, donated, or repaired and sold.

City Councilor Grout said this about the shopping cart ordinance:

“As a business owner, we are responsible for what makes our business tick, and they just need to be more responsible for the carts. … We see them all over. We see abandoned carts. … We don’t want it to be a burden on businesses, but they should be responsible for, what makes the business go around. Shopping carts are part of that, and so they need to take care of them.”

The link to review the entire shopping cart ordinance is here:

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/o-57-673abd7d003f8.pdf

PUBLIC CAMPING ORDINANCE

The third ordinance makes illegal “public camping” in unauthorized areas such as parks, streets and sidewalks.

The ordinance defines “CAMP”  as “ To occupy an area for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a  permanent or temporary place to live, or to occupy an area with an apparent intent to remain in that location for 24 hours or more.”

CAMP FACILITIES are defined in the act as “Tents, huts and any other temporary structures or shelters.”

An ENCAMPMENT is defined as “An area where an individual or individuals have erected  one or more tent or structures or placed personal items on public property with the apparent intent to remain in that location for 24 hours or more.  An  area will not be deemed an encampment merely because any individuals are  present on public property or because individuals have temporarily placed  personal items on public property.”

The ordinance is straight forward making it unlawful to camp on public property and it states:

“Except as otherwise authorized by ordinance or by rules issued by the Department of Parks and Recreation, it shall be unlawful for any person to camp, or maintain an encampment, in any publicly owned area, including any street, sidewalk, right of way, park, or open space. It shall further be unlawful  for any person to refuse to remove an encampment from public land after  receiving a notice instructing them to remove the encampment, or to set up an  encampment after being ordered to remove one from a particular location.  A  person does not violate this ordinance if the person is merely sitting, sleeping  or lying on public property on a temporary basis.”

The new ordinance will also make it unlawful for any person to maintain personal property, including camp facilities or camp paraphernalia, on public property after that person has received a notice instructing them to remove the items.

Violation of the ordinance is a petty 5 misdemeanor and, upon conviction be subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or both (§ 1-1-99)

The link to review the camping  ordinance is here:

Click to access o-58-673abd810f065.pdf

All 3 ordinances have been referred to the City Council Finance, Government and Operations Committee for hearings. Final action on the measures will likely occur after January 1.

OBJECTIONS RAISED AND RESPONSES

Anami Dass, chair of the city’s Human Rights Board, had harsh words  of the  measures dealing with prohibitions on public camping saying  the measures amount to little more than an “attack on rights.”  Dass said this:

“Life for some of us is hard enough — we don’t need the individuals we elected to represent all of us introducing ordinances designed to take tents away from people who literally have no alternative. … These ordinances are going to be up for final action around Christmas, and the Council will be debating Grout’s proposals to make life even worse for unhoused people … I think it’s time we consider what it is we are becoming, and who we would rather be instead.”

Councilor Grout said this in response to the criticism:

“It is not an attack on the homeless community at all. The taxpayers have been very generous with their money. We have spent millions of dollars on contracts with nonprofit providers to help them with services, getting them into shelters, getting them into housing.”

“We spent $85.9 million from 2020 to 2024 on contracts with social service providers — that doesn’t even include federal funding.  We just budgeted $4 million to operate the Gibson Gateway Center and we’ve spent $100 million rehabbing it. In fiscal year 2024 we spent $13.5 million in housing vouchers. We’re also remodeling the Gateway West — the Westside shelter.”

“We need to help our less fortunate people, but we can’t allow them to just run amok in our community. …  Families often tell [me] they feel unsafe in their neighborhood parks. … We all have to live by rules whether we like it or not.”

“Homelessness is not a crime — but a lot of the behavior is. We need to get them into safe shelter. We need to get them into safe spaces, because they deserve better than just being on the street in my opinion.”

“There’s nothing wrong with having boundaries. … If somebody wants to camp out or live outside, that’s their business — but they have to do it in certain areas. It can’t just be anywhere they want.”

“We’re codifying it because it’s documented in several places, in the traffic code, in the [Integrated Development Ordinance], the criminal code, it’s in the open space [code] — it’s even mentioned in the parks ordinance. … It’s mentioned, but not really defined. This is getting it better defined.”

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/tents-shopping-carts-park-use-proposed-rules-could-change-how-albuquerque-addresses-the-homeless-crisis/

https://www.koat.com/article/city-council-proposals-to-make-public-spaces-safer/62932205

https://citydesk.org/2024/trio-of-ordinances-seeks-to-curb-effects-of-encampments/

Click to access o-58-673abd810f065.pdf

EXISTING STATE STATUTES AND CITY ORDINANCES

The State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque have enacted 8 laws and ordinances enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property. The specific statutes and ordinances are:

1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
2. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
8. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors.  The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence. The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department have  agreed that only citations will be issued and no arrests will be made for “nonviolent crimes”  as part of a federal  court approved settlement agreement  in  a decades old federal civil rights lawsuit dealing with jail overcrowding.

US SUPREME COURT CASE GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON

 On June 28, the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The case is strikingly similar in facts and circumstances and laws to the case filed against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park.

The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass, a town with just one 138-bed overnight shelter,  criminalized them for behavior they couldn’t avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.

Meanwhile, municipalities across the western United States argued that court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments.  The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds.

The United States Supreme Court considered  whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking. The case is the most significant case heard by the high court in decades on the rights of the unhoused and comes as a rising number of people in the United States are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court  reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets.  The Supreme Court ruled  that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. … A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness. … Cities across the West report that the 9th Circuit’s involuntary test has crated intolerable uncertainty for them.”

Gorsuch suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.

A bipartisan group of leaders had argued the ruling against the bans made it harder to manage outdoor encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces in nine Western states. That includes California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.

Homeless advocates argue that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse. Cities had been allowed to regulate encampments but couldn’t bar people from sleeping outdoors.

Progressive Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketangi Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor read from the bench the dissent and said this:

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. … Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment. … It is quite possible, indeed likely, that these and similar ordinances will face more days in court. … It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. … [But the majority instead] focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass before the high court, applauded the ruling, saying the 9th Circuit decision had “tied the hands of local governments.”  Evangelis said this:

“Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”

The Supreme Courts ruling comes after homelessness in the United States has peaked and grown 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people. More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. Nearly half of them sleep outside. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said. In Oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis.

The Link to a quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/supreme-court-oregon-homelessness/61453397

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is a fine balance between assisting those experiencing homelessness while also enforcing laws that are designed to protect public health, safety and welfare and the peaceful use and enjoyment of public lands by the public such as parks. The Albuquerque City Council and Mayor Keller are on opposite sides on many issues, with one notable exception and that is how to deal with the unhoused and that unhoused encampments should not be allowed.

The Keller Administration has gone so far as to implement a formal homeless encampment removal policy that establishes the priority of what encampments to target first. The policy provides a timeline for which individuals must be notified of an encampment clearing. It provides for storage of personal belongings by the city free of charge. It authorizes the city to dispose of personal property seized that is abandoned.

The proposed ordinances and amendments to the existing ordinances as proposed by City Councilor Renee Grout represent a good faith effort to deal with problematic encampments. However, her proposals are in fact an overlap or a redundancy to existing state laws and city ordinances calling into question what will be accomplished, if anything, if enacted. As it stands under existing law, unhoused squatters or campers can be charged with criminal trespassing, unlawful use of public property, interference with sidewalk usage and street rights of way and unlawful nighttime camping in public parks. The city also has an aggressive encampment clearance policy.

The shopping cart abandonment ordinance is somewhat unique and clever at the same time, but it essentially places burdens on businesses who are victims of crime and stolen property when it’s the thief that needs to be charged. Victims of stolen shopping carts should not be required to pay the city $25 for the return of their stolen property and an extra $5 a day thereafter when they are told to pick up their property.  Metal Shopping carts cost anywhere from $150 to $250  and unhoused who pilfer them could be charged with theft or possession of stolen property, but that in fact never happens.

https://shopcarriage-trade.com/shopping-carts/metal-shopping-carts?srsltid=AfmBOooTNUlOWTnmaowgzlgrL2YLx5ZHAamn23Sx0ACJo-QUq9euP_VJ

The United States Supreme Court has given cities the green light to enforce vagrancy laws when it comes to the unhoused. Unhoused who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers or alternatives to living on the street force the city to make it totally inconvenient for them to “squat” anywhere they want and must force them to move on. After repeated attempts to reason with them to move on, citations and arrests are in order. Until the problem is solved, the public perception will be that very little to no progress has been made despite millions spent to deal with what Mayor Tim Keller proclaims as the “challenge of our lifetime.”

Links to related blog articles are here:

Mayor Tim Keller Creates 5 Separate Gateway Shelters To Deal With “Challenge Of Our Lifetime”; City’s $200 Million Financial Commitment To Unhoused; Keller Embellishes By Doubling Unhoused Numbers As He  Fails To Deal With Those Who Refuse Services And Getting Them Off Streets

City Revising Removal Of Homeless Encampment Policy; South Central And International District Area New Target  For Clean Ups; Action Long Overdue To Enforce Existing City Ordinances

 

City Creates “Shelter Connect Dashboard” Identifying Unhoused Shelter During Winter Months; City’s Unsheltered Data Breakdown; City’s Financial Commitment To The Unhoused; Given City’s Commitment To Homeless, Crisis Should Be Manageable But Has Only Gotten Worse Under Mayor Tim Keller

 

 

On November 1  President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden for federal felony gun and tax convictions reversing his pledge not to pardon his son or commute his son’s sentence after convictions in  two cases one in Delaware and the other in California. The pardon itself is sweeping in scope and goes way beyond the two recent federal felony convictions and covers the time frame of January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.

The pardon comes weeks before Hunter Biden’s sentencing was to happen after his trial conviction in the gun case and guilty plea on tax charges. The pardon also comes less than two months before  Donald Trump is set to return to the White House. The pardon ends a long running saga that began in December 2020 when Hunter Biden publicly disclosed he was under federal investigation.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/01/politics/hunter-biden-joe-biden-pardon/index.html

Following is the full statement released by President Biden on the pardon of his son Hunter Biden:

“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 have 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.

The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.

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’ll 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 come to this decision.”

The link to the news source is here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/

The pardon reads in full as follows:

Executive Grant of Clemency
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President of the United States of America

To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greetings:

Be It Known, That This Day, I, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, Pursuant to My Powers Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, Have Granted Unto

ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN

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 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have hereunto signed my name and caused the Pardon to be recorded with the Department of Justice.

Done at the City of Washington this 1st day of December in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-four and of the Independence of the United States the Two Hundred and Forty-ninth.

The link to the news source is here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/

In June, Biden categorically ruled out a pardon or commutation for his son, telling reporters as his son faced trial in the Delaware gun case, “I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.” As recently as Nov. 8, days after Trump’s victory, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre ruled out a pardon or clemency for the younger Biden, saying, “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is no.”

President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden have repeatedly and publicly stood by  Hunter Biden as he descended into serious drug addiction and as he  threw the Biden family life into turmoil. First Lady Jill Biden attended the first trial while the President maintained his distance. The president’s political rivals have long used Hunter Biden’s myriad mistakes as a political weapon against his father.  One Republican law maker in a congressional  hearing, displayed photos of the drug-addled Hunter Biden  half-naked in a seedy hotel.

House Republicans sought to use Hunter Biden’s years of questionable overseas business ventures in a since-abandoned attempt to impeach President Biden, who strenuously denied involvement in his son’s dealings or benefiting from them in any way.

HUNTER BIDEN REACTS

Hunter Biden has signed his name on a legal acknowledgment of the pardon and he issued the following statement:

“I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction — mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” Hunter Biden said in a statement to Fox News. “Despite all of this, I have maintained my sobriety for more than five years because of my deep faith and the unwavering love and support of my family and friends.”

“In the throes of addiction, I squandered many opportunities and advantages,” he continued. “In recovery we can be given the opportunity to make amends where possible and rebuild our lives if we never take for granted the mercy that we have been afforded. I will never take the clemency I have been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.”

On November 1 Hunter Biden’s legal team filed “Motions to Dismiss” the federal cases in Los Angeles and Delaware asking the judges handling his gun and tax cases to immediately dismiss them, citing the pardon.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-says-he-never-take-his-clemency-granted-after-receiving-pardon-from-his-father

REPUBLICANS REACT

Not at all surprising, many Republicans were down right hostile and  quick to condemn the pardon on social media, calling it an effort to “avoid accountability” and casting President Joe Biden  as a “hypocrite.”

“His FBI and DOJ raided Barron’s bedroom and Melania’s closet at Mar-a-Lago,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said on X, referring to the federal search of Trump’s home in Florida in connection with the now-dismissed classified documents case against him. “Joe Biden is a liar and a hypocrite, all the way to the end.”

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said on X that Biden “will go down as one of the most corrupt presidents in American history.”

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chair of the House Oversight Committee, said on X, “It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability.” Comer’s committee has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department recommending charges against Hunter Biden.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the decision “shocked” him.

“I’m shocked Pres Biden pardoned his son Hunter  whe said many, many times he wouldn’t & I believed him.  Shame on me,” he said on X.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/congressional-reaction-president-joe-biden-pardons-hunter-rcna182375

DEMOCRATS REACT

Some Democrats weighed in on the pardon. Governor Jared Polis, D-Colo., criticized Biden’s decision and said this on X:

“While as a father I certainly understand President @JoeBiden’s natural desire to help his son by pardoning him, I am disappointed that he put his family ahead of the country. …  This is a bad precedent that could be abused by later Presidents and will sadly tarnish his reputation.”

Similarly, Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton of Arizona said he thought Biden “got this one wrong” and  said on X.:

“This wasn’t a politically-motivated prosecution. … Hunter committed felonies, and was convicted by a jury of his peers.”

Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland spoke about the possibility of a pardon and offered  a possible explanation of what a pardon’s basis could be. Raskin  said this to CNN:

“There is a defense called selective prosecution. …  If you can show that the government has a set of cases that all look alike, but they pick one person out to prosecute based on, say, a political animus towards the person, which essentially is the claim that Donald Trump has been making about why he was targeted, the power exists for the president to show mercy for people who have committed crimes and either suffered some kind of injustice in the process or the punishment is disproportionate.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/congressional-reaction-president-joe-biden-pardons-hunter-rcna182375

TRUMPS REACTION TO PARDON AND HIS OWN RECORD OF PARDON ABUSE

Biden is not the first president to deploy his pardon powers to benefit those close to him.  He learned that lesson from none other than Donald Trump. In his final weeks in office, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in law, Jared Kushner, as well as multiple allies convicted by  special counsel Robert Mueller’s in the Russia investigation. Trump over the weekend announced plans to nominate the elder Kushner to be the U.S. envoy to France in his next administration.

Trump said in a social media post on December 1  that Hunter Biden’s pardon was “such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice. …  Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” Trump asked, referring to those convicted in the violent Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

People need to be reminded of what Trump’s record on pardons really is as outlined in this MSNBC report by Steve Benen:

“First, Jan. 6 criminals are not “hostages.”

Second, if we’re going to talk about pardons, abuses, and miscarriages of justice, Trump might not like where the conversation ends up.

… Trump’s record on pardons is arguably the worst in American history. During his first term, he effectively wielded his pardon power as a corrupt weapon, rewarding loyalists, completing cover-ups, undermining federal law enforcement, and doling out perverse favors to the politically connected.

Trump’s list of scandalous pardon abuses is so long, it could be a lengthy book. The names should be familiar: Paul Manafort. Michael Flynn. Steve Bannon. Roger Stone. Seven different Republican members of Congress who were locked up for corruption crimes.

Trump saw presidential pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for his friends and associates, engaging in the kind of brazen corruption that would’ve defined his term were it not eclipsed by other breathtaking scandals.

If prominent GOP voices want Biden to pay a political price for pardoning his son, fine. He said he wouldn’t do this, then he did it anyway, and in the process, he invited political attacks that are rooted in fact for a change.”

But if Trump thinks he has the moral high ground on the issue, that’s bonkers.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problem-trumps-reaction-hunter-biden-pardon-rcna182413

THE HUNTER BIDEN CHARGES REVIEWED

Hunter Biden was convicted in June in Delaware federal court of 3 felonies for purchasing a gun in 2018 when, prosecutors said, he lied on a federal form by claiming he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.  He had been set to stand trial in September in the California case accusing him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. Hunter Biden agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges in a surprise move hours after jury selection was set to begin.

David Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware who negotiated the plea deal, was subsequently named a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to have more autonomy over the prosecution of the president’s son. Hunter Biden said he was pleading guilty in that case to spare his family more pain and embarrassment after the gun trial aired salacious details about his struggles with a crack cocaine addiction. The tax charges carry up to 17 years behind bars and the gun charges are punishable by up to 25 years in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines were expected to call for far less time and it was possible he would have avoided prison time entirely.

Hunter Biden was supposed to be sentenced this month in the two federal cases, which the special counsel brought after a plea deal with prosecutors that likely would have spared him prison time fell apart under scrutiny by a judge. Under the original deal, Hunter was supposed to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses and and would have avoided prosecution in the gun case as long as he stayed out of trouble for two years. But the plea hearing quickly unraveled last year when the judge raised concerns about unusual aspects of the deal. The younger Biden was subsequently indicted in the two cases.

Hunter Biden’s legal team this weekend released a 52-page white paper titled “The political prosecutions of Hunter Biden,” describing the president’s son as a “surrogate to attack and injure his father, both as a candidate in 2020 and later as president.”

The younger Biden’s lawyers have long argued that prosecutors bowed to political pressure to indict the president’s son amid heavy criticism by Trump and other Republicans of what they called the “sweetheart” plea deal.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Many are condemning President Joe Biden for issuing a pardon of his son and some going so far as saying that it will taint his entire legacy as President. That is highly doubtful and ridiculous at best. In all likelihood the pardon will be nothing more than a footnote in history.  No one should be surprised by President Joe Biden’s pardon given Trumps repeated threats to go after his political enemies as he rewards his loyalists. Trump has vowed to pardon what he calls the J-6 Hostages who stormed the capitol at his urging to overthrow the 2020 election and where as many as 5 people were killed. When Trump pardons his J-6 convicted felons, it will be a clear gross misuse of power and a miscarriage of justice by Trump.  Congressional Republicans will no doubt applaud his actions as the compassionate thing to do, even though people got killed as members of congress coward in fear as the the doors of the Senate Chamber were being breached and Vice President Mike Pence was swept to safety.