Red Right Daily

Truth in Freedom

Esquire Retracts Column

Esquire Retracts Column

President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, has set off a storm of controversy—and rightly so. While the presidential pardon power is absolute, the way Biden wielded it has left critics fuming and defenders scrambling to rewrite history. Among the most glaring examples? Esquire magazine and The View’s Ana Navarro, both of whom stumbled spectacularly in their efforts to rationalize what is undeniably a politically damaging move.

Let’s start with Esquire. The magazine tried to paint Biden’s move as no big deal, throwing out a false equivalence: George H.W. Bush pardoned his son, Neil Bush. The problem? That never happened.

Esquire’s claim was quickly debunked, forcing the publication to issue a retraction and a sheepish editor’s note. It was a clumsy attempt at whataboutism that only served to highlight how unusual—and outrageous—Biden’s pardon truly is. Rather than offering a compelling defense, Esquire’s blunder only fueled the backlash.

But it didn’t end there. Enter Ana Navarro, co-host of The View and a self-described political insider. Navarro took to social media with a bizarre claim that Woodrow Wilson had pardoned his nonexistent brother-in-law, one “Hunter deButts.” Unsurprisingly, no such person or pardon exists. Navarro, in her rush to defend Biden, leaned on ChatGPT for her “facts” and was promptly called out for her lack of due diligence. The incident was a reminder that when defending the indefensible, even seasoned pundits can make fools of themselves.

At the core of the controversy is Biden’s own credibility—or lack thereof. For months, he adamantly insisted he would not pardon Hunter, despite the mounting legal troubles his son faced.

Now, with this sweeping pardon covering a decade’s worth of potential crimes, Biden has not only undermined his own promises but also opened himself up to accusations of nepotism and dishonesty. It’s not the use of the pardon power itself that’s shocking; presidents have long leveraged this authority for personal or political reasons. The problem lies in Biden’s pretense that he wouldn’t do exactly what he just did.

And then there’s the excuse-making. Biden’s defenders have floated the idea that he was somehow forced into this by Trump-era precedents or Republican hypocrisy. But that’s a narrative no one outside the most diehard echo chambers is buying. Biden’s decision isn’t about Trump or partisan gamesmanship—it’s about protecting his son and, by extension, his own political legacy.

Written by Mark Stevens - December 5, 2024