Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Wednesday, December 04, 2024

(1) South Korea Martial Law Live Updates: President Yoon Faces Calls for Resignation - The New York Times

Live Updates: South Korea’s President Faces Impeachment Motion

"It was submitted hours after President Yoon Suk Yeol rescinded a martial law declaration. His extraordinary overnight move incited protests and political turmoil.

Hundreds of people hold placards as they stand before a large building.
Members of South Korea’s opposition parties protesting at the steps of National Assembly in Seoul on Wednesday.Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Pinned

Members of South Korea’s opposition submitted a motion on Wednesday to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol after his imposition of martial law plunged the country into a political crisis.

His declaration of martial law — in an unscheduled televised address late Tuesday — incited political chaos within one of America’s closest allies and evoked memories of the dictatorial postwar regimes that stifled peaceful dissent and created a police state. Mr. Yoon’s ploy appeared to backfire over the course of one tense night, and before the sun rose in Seoul on Wednesday, he had backed down.

John Yoon
Dec. 4, 2024, 1:48 a.m. ET

The National Assembly can impeach a president and suspend him if 200 of its 300 members vote in favor. To remove the president from office, South Korea's Constitutional Court must approve the impeachment in a trial.

South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo at the National Assembly in Seoul in November.Pool photo by Lee Jin-Man

South Korea’s opposition, which controls the National Assembly, has threatened to impeachPresident Yoon Suk Yeol if he does not resign after his ill-fated decision to impose martial law.

If Mr. Yoon quits or is removed from office then, under the constitution, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo will step in to perform presidential duties.

Military helicopters

landed in this field 

Lawmakers met in the

National Assembly main hall

Some troops entered the

building from the back

Staffers barred troops

from front entrance

Police barricaded

the main gates

Perimeter

fence

Thousands of protesters

gathered in front of gates

Victoria Kim
Dec. 4, 2024, 1:28 a.m. ET

The impeachment bill was jointly proposed by six parties but not the president’s own ruling party, according to KBS, the national broadcaster.

Yonhap/EPA, via Shutterstock
John Yoon
Dec. 4, 2024, 1:26 a.m. ET

Opposition lawmakers in South Korea submitted a motion on Wednesday to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol, setting off a proceeding to remove him from office.

John Yoon
Dec. 4, 2024, 1:27 a.m. ET

Kim Yongmin, a lawmaker of the opposition Democratic Party, announced the motion in a news conference on Wednesday, adding that it would be placed on the agenda of the National Assembly’s plenary session at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday and voted on as early as Friday.

Soldiers and police officers outside the National Assembly in Seoul on Tuesday night. “It didn’t seem real that we were undergoing this again after 40 years,” said one lawmaker, Chung Chin-ook.Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

The last time South Korea was under martial law, Chung Chin-ook was in his first year of high school, more than 40 years ago. His home city of Gwangju rose up to protest oppressive measures by the military junta, only to face a brutal, bloody crackdown.

Late Tuesday night, those memories raced through the now 60-year-old lawmaker’s head as he scaled the fence surrounding the National Assembly. He and other members rushed to the chamber to nullify President Yoon Suk Yeol’s imposition of martial law, evading the police officials who stood guard at the gates.

Chang W. Lee
Dec. 4, 2024, 12:14 a.m. ET

Members of South Korea’s opposition parties protested at the steps of the National Assembly in Seoul on Wednesday, demanding that President Yoon Suk Yeol step down and be arrested.

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
John Ismay
Dec. 3, 2024, 10:56 p.m. ET

The United States and South Korea postponed a high-level meeting Wednesday between military officials to discuss nuclear deterrence issues, according to a U.S. defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

Video player loading
Soldiers stormed South Korea’s National Assembly as legislative aides put up barricades to give lawmakers time to vote on nullifying President Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law declaration.Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

The secretary general of South Korea’s National Assembly, Kim Min-ki, condemned the military on Wednesday morning for breaking into the legislature during President Yoon Suk Yeol’s brief imposition of martial law, saying that nearly 300 troops had stormed the compound.

“I strongly condemn the illegal, unconstitutional actions of the military and the destruction it caused at the National Assembly premises due to President Yoon’s decree of martial law,” Mr. Kim said at a news briefing. He vowed to seek legal remedies for the damage caused, and he said the police, who prevented some lawmakers from entering the building overnight, would be barred from the premises.

Victoria Kim
Dec. 3, 2024, 10:26 p.m. ET

South Korea’s Democratic party said in a statement Wednesday that if President Yoon does not resign they would immediately begin impeachment proceedings. The opposition lawmakers, who control the National Assembly, said Yoon's use of martial law was unconstitutional, and was “a grave act of insurrection, and clear grounds for impeachment.”

Alexandra E. Petri
Dec. 3, 2024, 9:42 p.m. ET

As South Korea's allies monitored the political turmoil there on Wednesday, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of Sweden said he had postponed a planned summit with President Yoon later this week.

Martin Fackler
Dec. 3, 2024, 9:42 p.m. ET

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba of Japan said he had not yet decided whether to postpone a planned visit to South Korea in January to meet with President Yoon. "We have been watching the situation with particular and grave interest," he said. Mr. Ishiba has supported closer security ties with South Korea to offset the challenges of China and North Korea.

JIJI Press/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Analysts and investors on Wednesday were trying to gauge how long South Korea’s outbreak of political turmoil would persist.Yonhap/EPA, via Shutterstock

South Korean stocks and the country’s currency were rattled on Wednesday, prompting officials to pledge “unlimited” support to markets after a tense night during which President Yoon Suk Yeol declared and then lifted martial law.

The benchmark Kospi index fell 1.4 percent, recovering somewhat from a deeper loss earlier in the day. Big banks were hit particularly hard, and an index tracking the financial sector dropped about 4 percent, a reflection of general economic unease. Shares of some of South Korea’s biggest companies were also down, with Samsung Electronics losing 1 percent and Hyundai Motor shedding more than 2 percent.

Minho Kim
Dec. 3, 2024, 9:19 p.m. ET

The secretary general of the National Assembly, Kim Min-ki, said that he would hold the military accountable for its role in imposing martial law briefly overnight, including their forced entry to the National Assembly.

Minho Kim
Dec. 3, 2024, 9:32 p.m. ET

He also said the police would be banned from the assembly building. He gave the first detailed account, as CCTV of the evening played, of what military resources were used overnight: About 230 personnel flew in helicopters to the assembly and then about 50 of them climbed over the fences. He promised to release the full video.

Victoria Kim
Dec. 3, 2024, 8:58 p.m. ET

Several senior aides to President Yoon, including his chief of staff, collectively tendered their resignation following the martial law declaration, according to KBS, South Korea’s national broadcaster. The top aides included his national security adviser and chief of staff for policy, according to Yonhap news agency.

Minho Kim
Dec. 3, 2024, 8:42 p.m. ET

South Korea's financial leaders have moved swiftly to reassure investors. Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok, in a news conference on Wednesday morning, said the government would “closely communicate” with other major economies and will act to limit the impact on the nation’s economy

Minho Kim
Dec. 3, 2024, 8:44 p.m. ET

The minister, who is also the economy minister, walked out of the news conference without taking any questions. One reporter shouted, “will the entire cabinet resign?” There was no response.

Soldiers with bound pro-democracy protesters in Gwangju, South Korea, in 1980.Sadayuki Mikami/Associated Press

For many younger South Koreans, President Yoon Suk Yeol’s short-lived declaration of martial law late Tuesday night was their first exposure to a kind of turbulence that older generations remember all too well.

Since South Korea was founded in 1948, a number of presidents have declared states of military emergency. The most recent — and the most notorious, perhaps — came after the 1979 assassination of President Park Chung-hee, a former general who had occasionally used martial law himself to crack down on political protests and opposition since seizing power in 1961.

Mike Ives
Dec. 3, 2024, 7:34 p.m. ET

Protesters have gathered at the edge of Gwanghwamun Square in central Seoul, as the rush hour commute unfolds around them. Some are holding signs calling for President Yoon’s resignation. 

Police officers in bright-green vests, some of them holding riot shields, are milling around the square and the entrance to nearby Gyeongbokgung Palace.

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
Mike Ives
Dec. 3, 2024, 7:56 p.m. ET

There is a robust protest culture in South Korea, and the Gwanghwamun area of Seoul is often thronged with demonstrators on weekends. Many rallies are organized by powerful unions, including the one that declared an “indefinite general strike” on Wednesday. In 2017, massive protests by opponents of President Park Geun-hye triggered her impeachment.

Joe Rennison
Dec. 3, 2024, 7:08 p.m. ET

The South Korean stock market began the local trading day on Wednesday roughly 1.5 percent lower than it ended on Tuesday, after the whiplash from the president’s decision to declare martial law then reverse it.

Protesters outside the National Assembly on Tuesday.Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Yoon Suk Yeol won South Korea’s highest office in 2022 by a threadbare margin, the closest since his country abandoned military rule in the 1980s and began holding free presidential elections.

Just over two years later, Mr. Yoon’s brief declaration of martial law on Tuesday shocked South Koreans who had hoped that tumultuous era of military intervention was behind them. Thousands of protesters gathered in Seoul to call for his arrest. Their country, regarded as a model of cultural soft power and an Asian democratic stalwart, had suddenly taken a sharp turn in another direction.

Lee Jae-myung, center, the opposition leader, speaking at the National Assembly in Seoul on Tuesday.Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

Minutes after South Korea’s president, Yoon Suk Yeol, declared martial law on Tuesday night through a decree, Lee Jae-myung, the main opposition leader, called on his supporters and members of his party to gather at the National Assembly.

Mr. Lee wanted lawmakers to pass a binding resolution to nullify the martial law decree, and he warned that the president might order the military to arrest them to stop the vote."

South Korea Martial Law Live Updates: President Yoon Faces Calls for Resignation - The New York Times

Monday, December 02, 2024

LIVE: Biden issues MUST-HEAR announcement on Supreme Court reform

Shouldn’t Trump Voters Be Viewed as Traitors? - The New York Times

Shouldn’t Trump Voters Be Viewed as Traitors?

"The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on whether voters should be held accountable for their chosen candidate’s behavior.

An illustration of a man with a MAGA hat going to vote and emerging from the polling place as one of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
Illustration by Tomi Um

From my perspective, the attack on the Capitol spurred on by Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, the efforts to nullify the results of the 2020 election with false electors and unfounded court cases and the persistent effort to discredit those election results without evidence amounted to an attempt to overthrow a pillar of our democracy. More to the point, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 includes crimes against the nation described as treason, misprision of treason, rebellion or insurrection, seditious conspiracy and advocating the overthrow of government. I hold anyone voting for Trump at least morally guilty for the consequences of Jan. 6 and everything that follows the recent election. Would you agree that people who vote for Trump in light of these circumstances are themselves guilty of treasonous acts? — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

Something like three-quarters of Americans, surveys over the past year report, think democracy in America is threatened. To go by exit-poll data, those voters supported Trump in about the same proportions as those who thought democracy was secure. In a study published last year, researchers at U.C. Berkeley and M.I.T. provided evidence that democratic back-sliding around the world — with citizens voting for authoritarian leaders — is driven in part by voters who believe in democracy but doubt that the other side does. The researchers found that such voters, once shown the actual levels of support for democracy among their opponents, became less likely to vote for candidates who violated democratic norms. The general point is that not understanding the actual views of people of other parties — and assuming the worst of them — can be dangerous for democracy.

Trump voters, for the most part, don’t think he committed treason. And your position can’t be that unknowingly voting for someone guilty of treason is itself treasonous. Perhaps you think that they should believe him to have been treasonous. Similar issues were aired when Henry Wallace, otherwise a highly dissimilar figure, ran for president in 1948. He had denounced the Marshall Plan, wanted the Soviet Union to play a role in the governance of Germany’s western industrial heartland and — detractors thought — was a Stalin apologist.

Historians can debate whether he was a voice of conscience or a pawn of America’s adversaries. But suppose you were among those who viewed him as a traitor. To have extended the indictment to his supporters would have been to criminalize political disagreement. Besides, if voting for someone who has done bad things makes you guilty of them, most voters are in deep trouble. It’s easy to be inflamed by someone with a habit of making inflammatory statements. But there may be a cost when you deem those who vote for the other side as ‘‘the enemy from within.’’ That’s a term that Trump has freely employed, of course. You’ll want to ask yourself whether protecting democracy is best served by adopting this attitude.

Readers Respond

The previous question was from a reader who disagreed with his friends about political hypocrisy. He wrote: “My Trump-supporter friends understand that he’s a liar and adulterer but adamantly defend him with reasoning like ‘‘Everyone lies — have you not lied before?’’ or ‘‘My dad’s an extremely trustworthy guy even though he cheated on my mom a couple of times — so what?’’ I understand they are rationalizing to feel good about their candidate, but is it ethical to be hypocritical?”

In his response, the Ethicist noted: “Yes, everybody lies. Still, lying about private matters, matters you think are nobody else’s business, may be quite different from lying about public matters in order to manipulate others into doing what you want. … Maybe what your friends really mean is that, though they might have preferred a president who showed greater fidelity to the truth and to his wives, these traits are less important to them than other traits that they actively favor. What they shouldn’t commit themselves to is the position that you can’t criticize someone for doing something you have done yourself. It also seems hard to dispute that, as David Leonhardt, Ian Prasad Philbrick and Stuart A. Thompson have argued in The Times, Trump has lied on a scale that outstrips his presidential predecessors. But we can put aside the tally. Hypocrisy, in Rochefoucauld’s deathless line, is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Society would founder if we had to be blameless to stand up for the values we hold dear.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)

It is irresponsible to defend Donald Trump by suggesting that his lies are not substantially different than the lies and exaggerations that any of us may be guilty of in our personal lives. His lies cost lives; e.g., knowingly minimizing the potential impact of a pandemic that he knew to be deadly. Individuals who defend Trump in this way are enabling a less stable climate abroad and worsening the trend toward inequality and rejection of science at home.  Joe

The issue with Trump is not just the lies themselves, or their proportion, but that he is proposing actions or decisions on the basis of those lies. Most of us do not have massive consequences to our lying, or consequences are essentially personal in nature, and impact our personal or perhaps work relationships. Trump’s lies, and any decisions based on those lies, have had, or will have, enormous if not dreadful consequences for some people. The more power I have, the more important I be trustworthy and fair in my dealings. The question is whether Trump has proved himself to be trustworthy or fair on these terms. Graham

There are lies, and then there are lies. A lie to protect someone from unwarranted harm would be virtuous; a lie to protect your privacy might be all right. But lies to obscure the truth? Lies to overthrow venerable and noble institutions? Lies that damage the innocent in order to further dishonest goals? Not the same at all. And, frankly, suggesting that they are is, simply put, lying.  Mark H.

Is it hypocritical to criticize someone for lying if you occasionally yourself? Certainly not if you believe that lying in general is wrong, but there are some occasions when it may be beneficial, such as to not hurt someone’s feelings or to maintain privacy about something. But if you say that “everyone lies” and that makes it OK, that is an issue, as it leads to “alternative facts” and a total disregard for telling the truth. A total disregard for truth is an ethical issue.  Phil

It doesn’t matter. Arguments or even discussions about politics are not worth losing friends. Politics and attitudes will change, but your friendships are supposed to last.  Mark U.

More from the The Ethicist Newsletter

The Ethicist

Advice on life’s trickiest situations and moral dilemmas from the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah. Sends twice a week. Get it in your inbox.

Recent issues from this newsletter

Explore our newsletters

Build your routine with some of our top newsletters or view them all here.

Stay up to date

Get informed as important news breaks around the world.

Start your day

Make sense of the day’s news and ideas.

Unwind

Catch up on the biggest news, and wind down to end your day.

Expert political analysis

Making sense of elections, politics and polling.

Get clear-eyed analysis

News and insights for a warming world.

What to watch

Discover TV and movie recommendations from critic Margaret Lyons and friends."

Shouldn’t Trump Voters Be Viewed as Traitors? - The New York Times

Read Joe Biden’s Statement About Pardoning Hunter - The New York Times

Read Joe Biden’s Statement and His Grant of Clemency

"President Biden issued the statement after signing a pardon for Hunter Biden Sunday night.

President Biden issued the following statement on Sunday night.

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 noncriminal 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 courtroom — 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.

Executive Grant of Clemency

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

President of the United States of America

To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greeting:

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."


Read Joe Biden’s Statement About Pardoning Hunter - The New York Times

Sunday, December 01, 2024

Live Updates: President Pardons His Son, Hunter Biden

 

Live Updates: President Pardons His Son, Hunter Biden

The “full and unconditional pardon” comes weeks before President Biden leaves office. The president’s spokeswoman had denied for months that he had any intention of granting clemency for his son.

(I had hoped Biden would pardon his son but I had doubted he had the courage.)

ImagePresident Biden embraces his son Hunter Biden.
Until Sunday night, Mr. Biden had said he would not pardon or commute the sentence of his son following his conviction on three federal felony counts of illegally purchasing a gun.Credit...Eric Lee/The New York Times
Pinned
Michael D. ShearZolan Kanno-Youngs

Michael D. Shear and 

Reporting from Washington

The extraordinary action comes in the final weeks of Biden’s presidency.

President Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon of his son Hunter on Sunday night after repeatedly insisting he would not do so, using the power of his office to wave aside years of legal troubles, including a federal conviction for illegally buying a gun and for tax evasion.

In a statement issued by the White House, Mr. Biden said he had decided to issue the executive grant of clemency for his son “for those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024.”

He said he did so because the charges against Hunter were politically motivated and designed to hurt the president politically. 

“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,” Mr. Biden said in the statement. “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.”

He added: “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.”

It was a remarkable turnaround for a man whose presidency and five-decade career was built in part on the idea that he would never interfere with the administration of justice. In 2020, he made the case that former President Donald J. Trump should be ousted from office to restore that kind of independence in America’s democracy, and he argued the same in 2024.

But in his statement, Mr. Biden sought to make the case for interfering after all, accusing his political enemies of going after his son in ways that anyone else would not have been. He said that he still believed in the justice system, but added, “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.”

In fact, the president’s announcement came at the same time that Mr. Trump made it clearer than ever that his second term would be focused on retribution and revenge against Mr. Biden — with Hunter Biden as a prime target. The president-elect on Saturday said he would name Kash Patel, a loyalist who has vowed to go after Mr. Trump’s enemies, as F.B.I. director.

In his statement, Mr. Biden said, “I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision.”

After Mr. Biden announced the pardon, Hunter Biden issued a statement of his own.

“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,” he said. “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.”

He expressed relief, but also some bitterness over what he perceived as an unnecessary prosecution, after his father told him he was being pardoned when the family gathered in Nantucket, Mass., for the Thanksgiving holiday, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Many of the president’s allies and critics had expected him to pardon his son, even though he and his spokeswoman had denied for months that he had any intention of doing so. NBC News first reported on Sunday evening that Mr. Biden had in fact decided to issue the pardon, which means his son will face no federal charges stemming from crimes he may have committed during that period.

But the move quickly drew expressions of scorn from Mr. Biden’s political adversaries and others and called into question the president’s honesty, given the many public statements that he made saying he would not pardon his son.

Clay Travis, a conservative radio host, posted on social media, “It’s really extraordinary how blatantly they lie.” Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said on social media that he was “shocked” Mr. Biden pardoned his son because “he said many many times he wouldn’t & I believed him Shame on me.”

Jenna Ellis, a former lawyer for Mr. Trump’s 2020 election team, posted: “Joe Biden pardoned three turkeys this week,” a reference to the annual pardoning of two actual turkeys at the White House just before Thanksgiving.

The reversal by Mr. Biden came just 50 days before he is set to leave the White House and transfer power to Mr. Trump, who spent years attacking Hunter Biden over his legal and personal issues as part of a series of broadsides against the Biden family.

Mr. Biden for much of his time in office said he would refrain from commenting on high-profile criminal cases, even related to his son, to make good on a commitment to maintain the independence of the Justice Department.

After the president’s son was convicted on three federal felony counts for illegally buying a gun, Mr. Biden said he would not pardon or commute the sentence of his son.

“I said I’d abide by the jury decision,” Mr. Biden told reporters during the Group of 7 summit in June. “I will do that.”

The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, repeatedly said that Mr. Biden would not issue a pardon for his son, often chiding reporters for asking the question.

In the summer of 2023, she was asked whether there was “any possibility” that the president would end up pardoning his son. She answered simply, “No.” When the reporter tried to ask the question again, she cut the question short and said: “I just said no. I just answered.”

​​Hunter Biden faced as much as 25 years in prison for lying on a federal form about his drug addiction when he bought a handgun in 2018, but he was unlikely to receive a sentence near that length. First-time offenders who did not use weapons for a violent crime typically receive much lighter sentences. Legal analysts had said it was possible that the president’s son could receive a year or less behind bars or even probation.

Justice Department officials have long been expecting — and dreading — the pardon of Hunter Biden, according to multiple law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. Several law enforcement officials have for years described the case as a necessary but thankless task, given the political tempest around it and the intense personal dynamic between the president and his son.

It is not the first time a president has used his executive power to commute the sentence of a family member. On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned his half brother Roger Clinton for old cocaine charges. A month before leaving office, Mr. Trump pardoned his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, for tax evasion and other crimes.

Both Roger Clinton and Charles Kushner had long since completed their prison terms, and the pardons were about forgiveness or vindication rather than avoiding time behind bars. Over the weekend, Mr. Trump said that he would nominate Charles Kushner to be the U.S. ambassador to France.

Hunter Biden pleaded guilty in September to nine federal tax charges in Los Angeles after telling his legal team that he refused to subject his family to another round of anguish and humiliation after the gut-wrenching gun trial in Delaware earlier in the year.

The dramatic development signaled the final stages of a fraught investigation of more than five years into the period when Mr. Biden bankrolled his drug and alcohol addiction by leveraging his last name into lucrative overseas consulting contracts — and not paying taxes.

Mr. Biden had been set to remain free on bond until his sentencing hearing, which was scheduled for mid-December.

Reporting was contributed by Glenn Thrush and Devlin Barrett in Washington.

President Biden Pardons His Son Hunter: Live Updates - The New York Times