Appearance of evil: How to counter Biden’s final act

Public officials hold a unique position in society.

They wield authority within the only institution legally permitted to use coercion. We entrust them with power, expecting them to act in ways that justify our confidence. Trust between government officials and the public is essential. We must believe they are not abusing their authority for personal gain or acting against the public’s best interests.

Biden has established a precedent that effectively shields influence peddling.

One principle often emphasized for public officials is the need to avoid even the appearance of evil.

Enter Joe Biden. He has spent nearly his entire adult life in government, serving 36 years in the U.S. Senate, followed by eight years as vice president under Barack Obama, before ultimately becoming president.

Throughout much of Biden’s political career, his family members — his brother James and his son Hunter — worked in political consulting. Their roles raise questions about the appearance of evil, as neither seemed to possess unique skills or expertise beyond their close ties to Biden as a senator, vice president, and president.

As an example, Hunter Biden was paid as much as $1 million in a year to serve on the board of Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company. Such payments are eye-popping given that Hunter had no relevant expertise in that business. The natural inference would be that he was paid such a large amount so that Burisma would benefit from Joe Biden’s power and influence. In one case, the U.S. ambassador to Italy expressed discomfort that the son of a sitting U.S. vice president was lobbying Italy on behalf of the Ukrainian firm.

The common response to these concerns is that Joe Biden was not fully aware of his son’s activities. Perhaps that is true, but it brings us back to the issue of the appearance of evil.

Notably, the pardons Biden granted to his siblings, their spouses, and his son extend back to 2014. That period includes Hunter’s lucrative board position at Burisma. This raises key questions: What did Burisma believe it was paying for? And if there was nothing for which Hunter could be prosecuted, why was it necessary for his pardon to cover activities going back a decade?

The House Committee on Oversight has produced a document (with bank memoranda) outlining the payments Biden family members received from foreign entities. It includes payments from Romania, China, Ukraine, and Russia that total some $20 million. Again, it would be difficult to conclude that Biden family members possessed anything worth that kind of compensation other than their proximity to a major American policymaker and the influence he was capable of exerting.

However, the former president has offered a justification for his pardons of family members. He says he fears retribution from the former and current president, Donald Trump.

Given Trump’s anger at what he sees as the weaponization of the legal system against him, Biden’s concern is not difficult to understand. American politics has become a pretty vicious game with both parties playing for keeps.

But here’s the problem. The American people need to know that their presidents (and other officials) are not unjustly enriching themselves and putting public policy up for sale to the highest bidder — especially bidders from foreign governments.

By pardoning all family members who may have profited from their relationship with him — or had knowledge of such dealings — Biden has established a precedent that effectively shields influence peddling. Whether intentional or not, his actions provide a clear path for future officials and their families to exploit political connections while in office, as long as they can secure a pardon.

This approach allows influence peddlers to maximize their gains while a relative holds power, knowing they have an escape route. When public outrage follows, both the president and the pardoned family members can justify their actions by claiming they feared political retribution from the opposing party.

This loophole is now the ultimate safeguard for influence peddling. It may be so problematic that it warrants a constitutional amendment to prevent presidents from issuing pardons between Election Day and the transition of power.

What must happen next is a full-scale investigation into the Biden family's financial dealings. With the pardons eliminating criminal liability, Biden family members can no longer invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. The only remaining legal risk would be perjury, which should compel truthful testimony and help uncover the full extent of what occurred.

If the matter can be fully explored, aiming more at truth than punishment, we may be able to prevent similar threats to public confidence in the future.