Fed­er­al judge accus­es Pres­i­dent Biden of attempt­ing to ‘rewrite his­to­ry’ in Hunter Biden par­don

The fed­er­al judge over­see­ing Hunter Biden’s tax case issued a sharp rebuke of Pres­i­dent Biden’s claim that his son was unfair­ly treat­ed as well as the pres­i­den­t’s deliv­ery method fol­low­ing the pres­i­den­t’s last-minute par­don.

U.S. Dis­trict Judge Mark Scar­si, who is based in the Cen­tral Dis­trict of Cal­i­for­nia and was nom­i­nat­ed by Pres­i­dent-elect Trump, accused Pres­i­dent Biden in a scathing five-page order of “rewrit­ing his­to­ry” with the par­don and sug­gest­ed that the breadth of the par­don grant­ed to his son is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al.

“The Con­sti­tu­tion pro­vides the Pres­i­dent with broad author­i­ty to grant reprieves and par­dons for offens­es against the Unit­ed States, but nowhere does the Con­sti­tu­tion give the Pres­i­dent the author­i­ty to rewrite his­to­ry,” he wrote.

BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE

The judge voiced his dis­plea­sure that the pres­i­dent alert­ed the judi­cial sys­tem of his order to par­don his son via a White House press release.

“Rather than pro­vid­ing a true and cor­rect copy of the par­don with the notice, Mr. Biden pro­vid­ed a hyper­link to a White House press release pre­sent­ing a state­ment by the Pres­i­dent regard­ing the par­don and the pur­port­ed text of the par­don,” he wrote.

“In short, a press release is not a par­don,” he con­tin­ued.

READ – APP USERS CLICK HERE:

Scar­si con­tin­ued, react­ing to the pres­i­den­t’s state­ment on his son’s tax case: “the Pres­i­dent asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treat­ed dif­fer­ent­ly’ from oth­ers ‘who were late pay­ing their tax­es because of seri­ous addic­tions,’ imply­ing that Mr. Biden was among those indi­vid­u­als who untime­ly paid tax­es due to addic­tion. But he is not.”

“Accord­ing to the Pres­i­dent, ‘[n]o rea­son­able per­son who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cas­es can reach any oth­er con­clu­sion than [Mr. Biden] was sin­gled out only because he is [the President’s] son.’ But two fed­er­al judges express­ly reject­ed Biden’s argu­ments that the Gov­ern­ment pros­e­cut­ed Mr. Biden because of his famil­ial rela­tion to the Pres­i­dent. And the President’s own Attor­ney Gen­er­al and Depart­ment of Jus­tice per­son­nel over­saw the inves­ti­ga­tion lead­ing to the charges,” Scar­si wrote.

2 TIMES BIDEN SAID HE WOULD NOT PARDON SON HUNTER BIDEN 

“In the President’s esti­ma­tion, this legion of fed­er­al civ­il ser­vants, the under­signed includ­ed, are unrea­son­able peo­ple,” he said.

The judge said he would dis­pose of the case once he receives the offi­cial par­don from “the appro­pri­ate exec­u­tive agency.” 

He also vacat­ed Hunter Biden’s sen­tenc­ing, which was sched­uled for Dec. 16.  The charges car­ried up to 17 years behind bars, but the first son would like­ly have faced a much short­er sen­tence under fed­er­al sen­tenc­ing guide­lines.

TRUMP PREVIOUSLY PREDICTED BIDEN WOULD PARDON SON HUNTER

“Sub­ject to the fol­low­ing dis­cus­sion, the Court assumes the par­don is effec­tive and will dis­pose of the case. The Supreme Court long has rec­og­nized that, notwith­stand­ing its near­ly unlim­it­ed nature, the par­don pow­er extends only to past offens­es,” he wrote.

Hunter Biden, 54, has had a busy year in court, kick­ing off his first tri­al in Delaware in June, when he faced three felony firearm offens­es, before he plead­ed guilty in a sep­a­rate felony tax case in Sep­tem­ber. 

Pres­i­dent Biden par­don­ing his son is a depar­ture from his pre­vi­ous remarks to the media over the sum­mer when he insist­ed he would not par­don the first son.

“Yes,” Pres­i­dent Biden told ABC News when asked if he would rule out par­don­ing Hunter ahead of his guilty ver­dict in the gun case. 

Days lat­er, fol­low­ing a jury of Hunter’s peers find­ing him guilty of three felony firearm offens­es, the pres­i­dent again said he would not par­don his son. 

“I am not going to do any­thing,” Biden said after Hunter was con­vict­ed. “I will abide by the jury’s deci­sion.”

Fox News Dig­i­tal has reached out to the White House for com­ment. 

Fox News Dig­i­tal’s Emma Colton and Andrea Mar­go­lis con­tributed to this report.