You're the president of a rich and powerful nation, and your son is about to be sentenced for two crimes which potentially carry significant jail time. You think he's been more harshly treated by the system because of who he is. In your final days in office do you use your presidential powers to pardon him? It sounds like a parlour game moral dilemma, but that's the actual choice faced by the outgoing US leader Joe Biden. As we now know, despite repeatedly insisting he wouldn't do it, . In his lengthy statement explaining his rationale, the US president said he hoped "Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision". The father The father part of the equation is relatively compelling. Joe Biden's life has been marked by personal tragedy. His baby daughter and first wife died in a car crash, in which his two young sons, Beau and Hunter, were injured. Hunter Biden's lived a life of troubles and tragedies. As he was pursued by a prosecutor, Republicans kept digging into his history. Beau would follow in his father's footsteps in pursuing a political career, becoming attorney-general of the Bidens' home state of Delaware and hoping to become governor. Biden harboured dreams Beau might one day even become president, but the elder son died of brain cancer in 2015. Beau's death appears to have propelled his younger brother Hunter further into the depths of drug and alcohol addiction. Hunter says he has now been sober for more than five years, but as any addict will tell you, it's a daily struggle, and there's no telling how time behind bars might have impacted him. If you're the president, and you're 82 years old and leaving office anyway, pushed out of the race for re-election, why not pardon your surviving son? The president The president part of the moral dilemma is a lot more complex. You were in office as four criminal cases were brought against your political opponent, moves he claims amounted to a weaponisation of the justice system. You took the moral high ground and insisted you would not interfere in the Department of Justice's decision-making even as your son was charged in two criminal cases. Then you watched as a plea deal his lawyers thought they had in the bag fell apart. You stood by as he was found guilty by a Delaware court of lying about his addiction issues when purchasing a gun, and as he pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges in California. Sentencing in both cases was scheduled for later this month. Biden says he's come to the conclusion that all of this is just not fair. In his statement, he says people in similar circumstances typically don't face criminal charges, particularly when there are no aggravating factors and when, as in the California case, they have since paid back their tax "with interest and penalties". "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," the president stated. The politics Biden argues his son has been the victim of political persecution. It's here that the outgoing president sounds a lot like the incoming one, Donald Trump, who claims all the charges brought against him are the result of a political witch-hunt. In both cases, there could be some merit to the arguments. Hunter's lies on the paperwork he filled out to buy a gun would likely never have come to light or been pursued had he not been Biden's son. And in a strange parallel, it was paperwork that essentially led to Trump's sole conviction from the four criminal cases he has faced. A New York jury found the former president guilty of covering up payments to a porn star who said she had slept with him. Forced to endure five weeks of painstaking testimony inside a drab Manhattan courthouse, a dozen New Yorkers were drawn into a House-of-Cards world of scandal, skulduggery and sex. It was a convoluted case, which relied on the cover-up being linked to attempts to influence the result of the 2016 presidential election. It likely would never have been brought if Trump weren't Trump. By pardoning his son, Biden has left himself open not just to accusations that he is politicising the justice system, but also that the system has been politicised. "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." Trump couldn't have said it better himself. The future Trump heads into this second term seeking revenge on those he says have used "lawfare" against him. The president's move may further embolden Trump and his allies to exact retribution on members of the Biden administration and the DOJ. , but Trump's nominated replacement, Pam Bondi, appears ready and willing to carry out his stated agenda. "When Republicans take back the White House," she said in an interview last year, "the Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted — the bad ones — the investigators will be investigated". Trump's nominated new head of the FBI, Kash Patel, is another loyalist . Trump called Hunter's pardon an "abuse and miscarriage of justice". Yet Trump should carefully weigh up the pros and cons of launching legal action against his adversaries. The former president appeared to be spent after the 2022 mid-terms, in which his party and preferred candidates performed below expectations. Setting aside questions about whether or not they were politically motivated, the filing of criminal indictments against him turned into a huge political boost. Many of Trump's supporters bought into his arguments that he was being unfairly treated. That narrative — and his mugshot — turbo-charged support for him as he campaigned for the Republican nomination. At the next presidential election in 2028, Democrats could potentially capitalise on any perceived victimisation if they are targeted under Trump's administration. With his decision to pardon his son, Biden has however made that trickier for the party. Democrats will now find it harder to argue they are the party of fairness. And the president may not be done yet. He could, , issue wide-ranging pardons to those who have pursued Trump's prosecutions, thus protecting them from any retribution. Indeed, his pardon for Hunter goes beyond the two crimes he was due to be sentenced for. It is a "full and unconditional pardon", which includes "but is not limited to" any offences committed over the past 10 years. The president is essentially shielding Hunter from possible future indictments pertaining to that period, including any that might arise out of his time on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Or, in his final seven weeks in office, Biden could muddy the waters further and issue Trump a pardon for his conviction. That could take a little wind out of the sails of the president-elect, making it harder for him to argue the system has been rigged against MAGA Republicans. Pardoning his arch-enemy might seem improbable, but in today's America, it's not impossible. The parlour games could be just beginning. Related stories Law, Crime and Justice Related topics Justice System US Elections United States

The Republican Jewish Coalition published a report on Thursday examining where Jewish voters in the Nov. 5 election swung for President-elect Donald Trump that suggests his strongest gains were among “those who live the most Jewish lives and reside in the most Jewish communities.” The analysis from WPA Intelligence, a conservative political consultancy and analytics firm, looked at available exit polling, city and county data and precinct data. It concluded that there is a growing political gap between “disengaged and secular people of Jewish ancestry,” who largely voted for Vice President Kamala Harris, and “those actively engaged with the Jewish religion” who broke for Trump. “Looking at Jewish neighborhoods and towns, the trends are stark and unmistakable,” WPAI stated. “Because Judaism is in some ways a communal religion and observant Judaism requires localized infrastructure, Jews who live in Jewish areas tend to be more religious and engaged. And in these neighborhoods, we see large shifts towards Trump.” “The trend is apparent from Trump’s near-unanimous support among Chassidic and Yeshivish Jews; to his rapid consolidation of the Modern Orthodox vote; to incremental gains even in more liberal Jewish areas such as Oak Park and Upper Manhattan,” the firm added. “So, too, is it diverse ethnically and geographically, occurring coast to coast and overrepresenting Persian and ex-Soviet Jewish communities.” The RJC/WPAI report is the latest set of data points in the dispute between Republican and Democratic Jewish groups over whether Trump won over a large share of Jewish voters and where he might have done so. That question might turn in large part on who is counted as Jewish, with pollsters reaching dramatically different conclusions depending on how Jewish voters are screened. According to a survey commissioned by J Street, Trump won only 26% of the Jewish vote nationally and 23% of the Jewish vote in the swing state of Pennsylvania, a result that would make Jewish voters one of the most reliable demographics for Democrats in an election in which nearly every other socioeconomic subgroup in the United States swung towards Trump. But 24% of J Street’s respondents identified as “not Jewish by religion,” weighting heavily in favor of Harris voters. A poll by the Orthodox Union’s Teach Coalition that used a different method for identifying Jewish voters found radically different results in Pennsylvania, with Harris only winning the state 48%-41%. The RJC/WPAI analysis concluded that some of the most dramatic swings in the Jewish vote towards Trump happened in New York. It also identified red shifts in heavily Jewish areas of New Jersey, Michigan and California. “Though Jews still often live in blue areas, their neighborhoods and communities are increasingly a major share of the red islands in blue seas,” MPAI stated. “In this election, we have seen how Jewish values vote, and increasingly, they vote red.”Marshall Brickman’s Best Advice for Aspiring Comedy WritersCU Boulder team creates free clinic to help with digital accounts after death

UBHOME Collaborates with Qualcomm to Release the Smart Lawn Mower, Co-Creating a New Era of Smart Life

Young vandals should not be prosecuted as a criminal record could limit their life choices, says the North Wales police and crime commissioner. Speaking at an economy and place overview and scrutiny committee, Andy Dunbobbin told Conwy councillors it was important to understand the reasons behind vandalism. He was taking questions from Conwy councillors at the economy and place overview scrutiny committee when Cllr Simon Croft raised the topic. Cllr Croft said: “We’ve had some reports in our committee recently about extensive and very expensive vandalism to our public toilets, which has meant we’ve had to take a number of them out of service. “And we’ve been told that even though we have captured these events on CCTV and even have real witnesses, council staff themselves, there has been an unwillingness to take it to prosecution, and this is something we really need to have done and made an example of to stop this rash of vandalism to public facilities.” But Mr Dunbobbin said it was important police took an approach that wouldn’t damage young people who had made “poor choices”. “I’ve read on social media. It is quite topical with the toilets,” he said. “I touched on this during my presentation regarding anti-social behaviour hotspots. I’m sure the force will be aware of them. “I think there is action being taken. Although people might not be getting prosecuted for that, we need to try and understand the reasons why it is taking place as well, because we can’t necessarily arrest our way out of problems. “If you just keep re-arresting people, you are not really getting to the crux of why it is happening in the first place, so I really would look into seeing what’s going on with our youth offending teams as well, and I’m sure the appropriate referrals are being made and closely monitored by the force as well.” He added: “So not necessarily having to come down firmly although... it’s probably best to try and divert... I would have thought it would be primarily our younger people, and for a moment of madness or really making a poor choice, I don’t think it’d be particularly fair for them to have the significant effect of having a criminal record (that would) limit their life choices in the future. “We should be trying to find out why and addressing that as well.” By Richard Evans – Local Democracy Reporter Get notified about news from across North WalesWASHINGTON — Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday that the Federal Reserve's ability to set interest rates free of political interference is necessary for it to make decisions to serve “all Americans” rather than a political party or political outcome. Speaking at the New York Times’ DealBook summit, Powell addressed a question about President-elect Donald Trump's numerous public criticisms of the Fed and of Powell himself. During the election campaign, Trump had insisted that as president, he should have a “say” in the Fed's interest rate policies. In his remarks Wednesday, Powell said, “We’re supposed to achieve maximum employment and price stability for the benefit of all Americans and keep out of politics completely." Despite Trump's comments, the Fed chair said he was confident of widespread support in Congress for maintaining the central bank's independence. “I’m not concerned," he said, “that there’s some risk that that we would lose our statutory independence. “There’s very, very broad support for that set of ideas in Congress, in both political parties, on both side of the Hill.” On the topic of interest rates, Powell said the Fed can afford to cut its benchmark rate cautiously, because the economy is doing better than the Fed thought it was in September, when it collectively predicted four rate cuts in 2025 after three cuts in 2024. “We’re not quite there on inflation, but we’re making progress,” Powell said. “We can afford to be a little more cautious." The Fed has been aiming to deliver a “soft landing” for the economy, whereby the central bank's interest rate hikes manage to help reduce inflation to its 2% target without causing a recession. History has shown it's a rare and difficult feat. Yet the economy appears largely on track for such an outcome. The job market has slowed. And inflation is down sharply, though in recent months it has remained stuck modestly above the Fed's target, which could make the policymakers reluctant to cut rates much further. Several other Fed officials have said this week that they expect to keep reducing rates, without committing to a reduction at their next meeting later this month. On Monday, Christopher Waller, an influential member of the Fed's Board of Directors, said he was “leaning” toward a rate cut when the central bank meets in two weeks. Waller added, though, that if forthcoming data on inflation or hiring appears worse than the Fed expects, he might favor keeping rates unchanged. On Tuesday, Mary Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said she supported further lowering rates, without commenting specifically on a timetable. “Whether it’ll be in December or some time later, that’s a question we’ll have a chance to debate and discuss at our next meeting,” Daly said in an interview on Fox Business News. "But the point is, we have to keep policy moving down to accommodate the economy because we want a durable expansion with low inflation.”

Grand Prix Plaza 2025 experiences revealed

AMGEN TO PRESENT AT CITI'S 2024 GLOBAL HEALTHCARE CONFERENCETen decidedly out-there Taylor Swift accommodation listings as The Eras Tour descends on Vancouver

Opposition-led protests costing Pakistan Rs 190bln daily, claims FinMin

Marvel Rivals' Wolverine Design Is Certainly a Choice - IGN Daily FixEPFO conducts outreach programme in RajouriSouthampton boss Russell Martin has said that Jack Stephens' red card "cost" his side in their 5-1 defeat by Chelsea in the Premier League on Wednesday. Replays showed that the Saints captain pulled Chelsea full-back Marc Cucurella by his hair as Southampton had an attacking corner. Referee Tony Harrington referred to the pitchside monitor before showing Stephens a straight red card for the incident. "I don't think anyone will be more disappointed than Jack," Martin said. "He'll be hurt more than anyone and it changed the game a bit for us tonight. "I'm disappointed for him and us, it's a moment of madness that has really cost us." This was Stephens' second sending-off of the season, having previously been dismissed when Manchester United won at St Mary's in September. He is the first Southampton player to be sent off twice in a Premier League season since Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg in 2018-19. "I've not even seen it but they explained to me what happened," Martin added. "I don't think it's really violent conduct but there's no explanation for it really, is there?"

Boston cancer researcher accused of tricking distant relative with dementia into changing her will to get apartment

NoneAudi Crooks' winning shot leads No. 8 Iowa State to 80-78 win over Drake

Canada may have to spend millions more before new payment system can be used