Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is unveiling a new set of bills that could have child sexual predators facing the death penalty.

‘If you are raping someone, if you’re molesting someone, you are essentially murdering their soul. Those people never actually fully recover. I’ve actually sat on a committee with a very prominent [female House Democrat] who actually talked about the fact that she was molested as a child. And so you can see that it impacts and really hurts people,’ Luna said.

Two of her three bills, all of which are being introduced in the 119th Congress on Tuesday, would require sentences of death or at least life imprisonment for those charged with a wide range of crimes related to children. 

A third bill would require guilty verdicts of rape and sexual abuse against adults to carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years to life in prison.

Luna told Fox News Digital she broached the topic with President-elect Donald Trump over the weekend, who she suggested was enthusiastic about the idea.

‘I got the impression that he absolutely is supportive of anything in this sector,’ Luna said.

The Florida congresswoman was among the members of the House Freedom Caucus who met with Trump over the weekend at Mar-a-Lago. 

She said they also discussed Trump potentially signing an executive order levying the death penalty for pedophilia-related crimes but that it would likely be impossible to accomplish that way.

‘He would be willing to sign an [executive order]. But the fact is, is that it has to go through Congress first. So it would have to come to his desk that way,’ she said.

Luna first introduced the bills in the last Congress when Democrats controlled half of Congress as well as the White House. They failed to get much traction, however, and ultimately never saw a House-wide vote.

She suggested that the death penalty aspect could have put some people off of an issue that otherwise could get wide bipartisan support, but she argued that child predators ‘cannot be rehabilitated.’

‘If you are going to continue to push forward in a moral society, [then] you need to ensure that people like this, that are predators, are taken off the streets permanently,’ Luna said.

Pete Hegseth is set to take the hot seat before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday in a hearing that is sure to break out into fireworks. 

President-elect Donald Trump nominated Hegseth to shake up the Pentagon as his defense secretary, but the former Fox News host has been entangled in controversies that Democrats on the committee can be expected to question him about. 

‘Democrats certainly aren’t going to make this a walk in the park by any means,’ one Republican aide said. 

‘You’ll see Democrats are pretty organized, they’re thinking strategically to make sure everything is covered, and it’s not a hearing that gets overly repetitive,’ one senior Democrat aide told Fox News Digital. 

‘I don’t think it’s going to be particularly hostile, but I do think it will be very tough. It’s going to focus a lot just on what we should expect of a nominee for this job and where he falls short,’ the aide went on. ‘There are questions about the things he’s done, his character and his leadership.’ 

Hegseth will be the first of Trump’s controversial change agent picks to face questioning from lawmakers.

Republicans can be expected to play defense, framing Hegseth as a decorated combat veteran who will hold the military accountable after years of failed audits and DEI initiatives. 

With little hope of winning any Democrat votes, Hegseth will have to woo moderate Republicans who have previously expressed skepticism about his nomination. 

Democrats are expected to hammer him over his past conduct and his qualifications to lead the government’s largest agency, which employs 3 million people.

The 44-year-old Army National Guard veteran, who did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, is relatively young and inexperienced compared to defense secretaries past, having retired as a major. But Republicans say they don’t want someone who made it to the top brass, who’s become entrenched in the Pentagon establishment. 

Hegseth is sure to face questions about a sexual assault accusation from 2017. He’s acknowledged paying his accuser an undisclosed sum to keep quiet at the time for fear of losing his job, but he denies any non-consensual sex took place.

Former employees at veterans’ groups Hegseth used to run have accused him of financial mismanagement and excessive drinking, according to a New Yorker report, and NBC News reported that his drinking ‘concerned’ colleagues at Fox News. 

Hegseth denies the accusations and said he would not drink ‘a drop of alcohol’ if confirmed to lead the Defense Department. 

The hearing, which kicks off at 9:30 a.m., will be packed with veterans who traveled to Washington, D.C., to support Hegseth in the face of attacks.

For weeks, Hegseth has been visiting Capitol Hill to meet with senators, including those who are skeptical of him. Last Wednesday, he met with the top Armed Services Committee Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and the meeting apparently didn’t go well. 

‘Today’s meeting did not relieve my concerns about Mr. Hegseth’s lack of qualifications and raised more questions than answers,’ Reed said in a statement.

Hegseth must first win a majority in a vote of the Armed Services Committee, made up of 14 Republicans and 13 Democrats, meaning one Republican defection could tank the vote.

He then needs to win a simple majority on the Senate floor, meaning he can afford to lose no more than three Republican votes. 

‘I think he kind of knows that all he needs is Republican votes to get from now into the job,’ said a Democrat aide. ‘His job is to just keep his head down and not say something that would create an opening for these [Republicans], many of whom I really don’t think want to vote for him, to have a reason to revisit that. So I expect that he’s going to try to say very little and say it very calmly and politely.’

In committee, all eyes will be on Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, a veteran herself who at first seemed hesitant about Hegseth. After two meetings with the nominee, Ernst said she would support him through the confirmation process and looked forward to a fair hearing. She didn’t commit to voting for him. 

Senators will also take a fine-toothed comb to Hegseth’s lengthy record of public comments on TV and across the five books he’s written. 

One such belief is that women should not fight in combat roles. 

‘Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially not in combat units,’ he wrote in his most recent book, ‘The War on Warriors,’ published in 2024.

‘Men are, gasp, biologically stronger, faster and bigger. Dare I say, physically superior,’ Hegseth added.

On a Nov. 7 episode of the Shawn Ryan podcast, which aired mere days before Hegseth was tapped to serve as Defense Secretary, the nominee said, ‘I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.’

Hegseth later told Fox News in December that women are some of the U.S.’ ‘greatest warriors.’ 

‘I also want an opportunity here to clarify comments that have been misconstrued, that I somehow don’t support women in the military; some of our greatest warriors, our best warriors out there are women,’ he said.

Female service members ‘love our nation, want to defend that flag, and they do it every single day around the globe. I’m not presuming anything,’ he added.

The Justice Department made public Volume I of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report on his now-closed investigations into President-elect Donald Trump, days before he is set to be sworn into office. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland released the first volume, which focuses on the election case against Trump, of Smith’s report on Tuesday at midnight after back-and-forth in the federal court system.

An opening letter from Smith to Garland said that it is ‘laughable’ that Trump believes the Biden administration, or other political actors, influenced or directed his decisions as a prosecutor, stating that he was guided by the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

‘Trump’s cases represented ones ‘in which the offense [was] the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain,’’ Smith said, referencing the principles.

In the lengthy report, Smith said his office fully stands behind the decision to bring criminal charges against Trump because he ‘resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power’ after he lost the 2020 election.

Smith said in his conclusion that the parties were determining whether any material in the ‘superseding indictment was subject to presidential immunity’ when it became clear that Trump had won the 2024 election. The department then determined the case must be dismissed before he takes office because of how it interprets the Constitution.

‘The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind,’ the report stated.

In an early Tuesday morning post on Truth Social, Trump called Smith ‘desperate’ and ‘deranged’ for releasing his ‘fake findings’ in the middle of the night.

Garland appointed former Justice Department official Jack Smith as special counsel in November 2022. 

Smith, a former assistant U.S. attorney and chief to the DOJ’s public integrity section, led the investigation into Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving the White House and whether the former president obstructed the federal government’s investigation into the matter. 

Smith was also tasked with overseeing the investigation into whether Trump or other officials and entities interfered with the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election, including the certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Smith charged Trump in both cases, but Trump pleaded not guilty.

The classified records case was dismissed in July 2024 by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel. 

Smith charged Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington D.C. in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request. 

This month, though, Cannon temporarily blocked the release of Smith’s final report. A federal appeals court reversed her ruling, allowing the Justice Department to make Smith’s report public. 

In the classified records probe, Smith charged Trump with 37 federal counts including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements. Trump pleaded not guilty. 

Trump was also charged with an additional three counts as part of a superseding indictment out of the investigation: an additional count of willful retention of national defense information and two additional obstruction counts. 

In the 2020 election case, Smith charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; violation of an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Trump pleaded not guilty. 

The cases brought by Smith against Trump never made it to trial in either jurisdiction. 

Despite efforts by Trump attorneys to prevent the report’s release, Attorney General Merrick Garland had maintained that he would make at least one volume of Smith’s report public.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. 

In a major reversal, some U.S. intelligence agencies are now saying a foreign adversary could be behind the mysterious ‘Havana Syndrome’ brain injuries reported by U.S. diplomats and government workers overseas. While the overall assessment from the intelligence community remains, it is ‘very unlikely’ Havana Syndrome could be caused by a foreign actor, two out of seven U.S. intelligence agencies now say it is possible a foreign adversary could have developed a weapon that could cause such brain injuries.

Adam, a former government employee whose identity Fox News agreed to protect, considered to be ‘Patient Zero,’ was first attacked in December 2016 while living in Havana on assignment. Adam experienced multiple attacks and described pressure to the brain that led to vertigo, tinnitus and cognitive impairment.

Adam and other victims have been pressing the U.S. government to find a culprit. He said he is starting to feel hopeful now that two of the seven U.S. intelligence agencies acknowledge a foreign adversary, he says likely Russia, has developed a weapon that could be responsible for the kind of neurological injuries reported by those suffering from Havana Syndrome.

‘This has been an eight-year fight. I don’t know if I would say I feel vindicated yet. We will get there. The truth will come out. And when that’s fully exposed, I think that’s when I will say that I’m vindicated… I’m hoping the new administration can pay that debt and we can hold those responsible that have covered this up and partaken in some egregious behavior, frankly, because we all deserve better. The American people deserve better than to be lied to like this,’ Adam told Fox News.

Adam was one of six Havana Syndrome victims to attend a meeting in the White House situation room on November 18th, 2024. The meeting was designed to provide the incoming administration with a roadmap on Havana Syndrome, also called Anomalous Health Incidents (AHI’s). The three-hour meeting was chaired by NSC Coordinator for Intelligence and Defense Policy Mahar Bitar. The victims say they received a moving apology from the NSC staff on how they were treated by the U.S. Government.

The NSC released a statement following the updated assessment from the intelligence community:

‘Today’s updated Intelligence Community Assessment, which is the product of ongoing analytic efforts and includes a shift in key judgements by some intelligence components, only reinforces why it is vital that the U.S. Government continue critical research, investigate credible incidents, and strengthen efforts to provide timely care and long-term clinical follow-up,’ the statement read.

The NSC will brief the incoming Trump administration on the ‘full scope of ongoing work that should continue,’ the statement continued to say.

Adam said it has long been obvious to the victims that a foreign adversary could be behind the suspected directed energy attacks.  

‘Here’s the piece that, you know, astounds me. Can the CIA not Google? Because if anyone could sit and Google China, neuro-strike weapons, Russia, super weapons, they have been very public in the press that they have directed energy weapons programs that do exactly what they did to us and that they plan on deploying them in conventional warfare,’ Adam said.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released the report and held a background call with reporters on Friday.

The new assessment from the intelligence community said, ‘New reporting led two components to shift their assessments about whether a foreign actor has a capability that could cause biological effects consistent with some of the symptoms reported as possible AHIs. This shift consequently led two IC components to subtly change their overall judgment about whether a foreign actor might have played a role in a small number of events.’

The ODNI official explained the change in assessment of the two intelligence agencies.

‘They judge there is a roughly even chance a foreign actor has developed a novel weapon or prototype device that could have harmed a small, undetermined subset of the U.S. personnel or dependents who reported medical symptoms or sensory phenomena as AHIs,’ the official said.

For both of these components. They have a low confidence in their judgments,’ the official continued to say.

 The Republican-led CIA Subcommittee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) released an interim report on the committee’s separate investigation into Havana Syndrome. The report concluded that it is ‘increasingly likely’ that a foreign adversary is responsible for ‘some portion’ of the incidents.

The subcommittee accused the intelligence community of withholding valuable information from them in the interim report.

‘The IC’s inconsistent approach has had detrimental effects on IC personnel, trust in the IC by policymakers, the understanding of the American public, and perceptions of the IC by both foreign allies and adversaries,’ the report said.

Crawford vowed to work with the incoming Trump administration to get answers for affected federal employees and the public.

Attorney Mark Zaid who represents some of the victims said the new assessment indicates, ‘evidence has only moved closer to the Intelligence Community acknowledging the involvement of a foreign adversary, not away.’

Adam hopes the Trump administration will keep pressing for answers on Havana Syndrome and what caused hundreds of workers brain injuries.  

‘Now there is also new information that’s in play, and it’s so irrefutable that even they can’t stand by and watch this cover-up continue… we’re hoping that we’re going to have a more amenable administration that cares about its workforce and cares about the truth,’ Adam said.

Special Counsel David Weiss’ final report on his years-long investigation into Hunter Biden determined the first son’s drug abuse could not explain away not paying taxes on millions of dollars of income earned off of his ‘last name and connections.’ 

‘As a well-educated lawyer and businessman, Mr. Biden consciously and willfully chose not to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes over a four-year period. From 2016 to 2020, Mr. Biden received more than $7 million in total gross income, including approximately $1.5 million in 2016, $2.3 million in 2017, $2.1 million in 2018, $1 million in 2019 and $188,000 from January through October 15, 2020,’ Weiss wrote in his final report, which was released Monday. 

‘Mr. Biden made this money by using his last name and connections to secure lucrative business opportunities, such as a board seat at a Ukrainian industrial conglomerate, Burisma Holdings Limited, and a joint venture with individuals associated with a Chinese energy conglomerate. He negotiated and executed contracts and agreements that paid him millions of dollars for limited work,’ Weiss continued. 

Hunter Biden, 54, had a busy year in court last year, when he was convicted of two separate federal cases prosecuted by Weiss. He kicked off his first trial in Delaware in June, when he faced three felony firearm offenses involving his drug use, before pleading guilty in a separate felony tax case in September. 

Hunter Biden’s September trial revolved around charges of three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses regarding the failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. As jury selection was about to kick off in Los Angeles federal court for the case, however, Hunter Biden entered a surprise guilty plea. 

Weiss continued in his report that Hunter Biden ‘spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills,’ and that he ‘willfully failed to pay his 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxes on time, despite having access to funds to pay some or all of these taxes.’ 

Weiss added that the first son’s previous drug abuse could not explain his failure to pay the taxes. 

‘These are not ‘inconsequential’ or ‘technical’ tax code violations,’ Weiss wrote. ‘Nor can Mr. Biden’s conduct be explained away by his drug use-most glaringly, Mr. Biden filed his false 2018 return, in which he deliberately underreported his income to lower his tax liability, in February 2020, approximately eight months after he had regained his sobriety. Therefore, the prosecution of Mr. Biden was warranted given the nature and seriousness of his tax crimes.’

Hunter has a well-documented history of drug abuse, which was most notably documented in his 2021 memoir, ‘Beautiful Things.’ The book walked readers through his previous addiction to crack cocaine, before getting sober in 2019. The memoir featured extensively in his separate firearms case in June, when a jury found him guilty of three felony charges related to his purchase of a gun while addicted to substances. 

‘The evidence demonstrated that as Mr. Biden held high-paying positions earning him millions of dollars, he chose to keep funding his extravagant lifestyle instead of paying his taxes. He then chose to lie to his accountants in claiming false business deductions when, in fact, he knew they were personal expenses. He did this on his own, and his tax return preparers relied on him, because, among other reasons, only he understood the true nature of his deductions and he failed to give them records that might have revealed that the deductions were bogus,’ Weiss continued. 

The tax case charges carried up to 17 years behind bars, but the first son would likely have faced a much shorter sentence under federal sentencing guidelines. His sentencing was scheduled for Dec. 16, but he was pardoned by his father, President Biden, earlier that month. 

Hunter Biden’s blanket pardon encompassed a decade-period applying to any offenses he ‘has committed or may have committed’ on a federal level. 

Weiss’ report also took issue with the president’s pardoning of Hunter Biden, specifically with how President Biden characterized prosecutions of Hunter Biden as ‘selective’ and ‘unfair.’

‘This statement is gratuitous and wrong,’ Weiss wrote in his report. ‘Other presidents have pardoned family members, but in doing so, none have taken the occasion as an opportunity to malign the public servants at the Department of Justice based solely on false accusations.’ 

‘Politicians who attack the decisions of career prosecutors as politically motivated when they disagree with the outcome of a case undermine the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system,’ Weiss wrote in another section of the report. ‘The President’s statements unfairly impugn the integrity not only of Department of Justice personnel, but all of the public servants making these difficult decisions in good faith.’ 

The DOJ sent Weiss’ report to Congress Monday evening, officially bringing the years-long investigation into the first son to a close. 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is meeting with Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Democrats on Monday evening to discuss the confirmation hearing for controversial Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth — just hours before its set to take place. 

A Senate Democratic source confirmed the last-minute meeting to Fox News Digital. 

Schumer and other Democrats have made their opposition to the former Fox News host clear in the days leading up to the hearing, which is the first to take place of all President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees. 

The meeting, first reported by Axios, comes after the New York Democrat urged his fellow caucus members to grill Trump’s nominees in their upcoming hearings and force them to go on record about controversial Trump agenda items, per a Senate Democratic source. 

The source added that Democrats are planning to lay the groundwork to say that they warned about Trump’s Cabinet picks early on. 

In floor remarks on Monday, Schumer said, ‘Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth’s background is deeply troubling, to put it generously. We have all read the reports about his radical views, his alleged excessive drinking, the allegations about sexual assault, and his failures in the financial stewardship of multiple organizations.’

Hegseth has denied all allegations, including those suggesting financial mismanagement, sexual assault and alcohol consumption. 

The Secretary of Defense nominee’s spokesperson did not immediately provide comment to Fox News Digital. 

Democrats on SASC include Ranking Member Jack Reed, D-R.I., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Tim Kaine, D-Va., Angus King, I-Maine, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Gary Peters, D-Mich., Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.

Reed and Hegseth met last week for a notably brief discussion. Afterward, the SASC ranking member said in a statement, ‘Today’s meeting did not relieve my concerns about Mr. Hegseth’s lack of qualifications and raised more questions than answers.’ 

‘As with any nominee for this critical position, Mr. Hegseth must undergo the same high-level of scrutiny as prior Secretary of Defense nominees,’ he added. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary, laying out a bevy of accusations and about 100 questions that she expects him to answer at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday.  

Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, penned the 33-page letter last week to Hegseth. It describes why she thinks he is ‘unfit’ to serve, referring to him at one point in the letter as ‘an insider threat’ due to a tattoo Hegseth has that Warren claims is tied to ‘right-wing extremism.’ 

‘Your confirmation as Secretary of Defense would be detrimental to our national security and disrespect a diverse array of servicemembers who are willing to sacrifice for our country,’ Warren writes in the letter. ‘I am deeply concerned by the many ways in which your behavior and rhetoric indicates that you are unfit to lead the Department of Defense.’

The letter starts off with accusations against Hegseth that include claims of financial mismanagement during his work operating two nonprofits, and accusations of heavy drinking and sexual assault. 

The Massachusetts Democrat accused Hegseth of ‘gross mismanagement’ in running up debt and using business funds at the nonprofits he ran for personal expenses. She cited past colleagues of Hegseth’s who claimed to be privy to what took place. Warren also claimed in her letter that some of Hegseth’s past colleagues had shared he may potentially have a drinking problem, citing ‘at least 11 separate incidents in which [Hegseth has] been described as drinking excessively or inappropriately in public.’ Warren asks in the letter if Hegseth would resign if he were to be caught drinking again.  

Warren also went after Hegseth’s policy positions in the letter, several of which were made during media appearances and in books. 

Warren slammed Hegseth for previous comments about women in the military, including remarks he made that only men should be allowed in combat roles. Warren questioned Hegseth about other aspects of women in the military as well, including whether he thinks single women in the military should have access to birth control.

Hegseth, an advocate for getting rid of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in the military, was slammed by Warren in her letter for calling for the firing of ‘any general, admiral, whatever, that was involved in any of the DEI woke s–t,’ during a podcast interview in November. 

Warren added that in addition to potentially firing Defense Department officials promoting DEI, she also detailed fears about Hegseth’s willingness to help aid Trump in going after his political opponents. In one of Warren’s questions, she requested that Hegseth share his thoughts on the 2020 election and whether he believes Trump won, or lost fairly. 

At one point in the letter, Warren highlighted that Hegseth had been removed from President Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021 because of concerns he was ‘an insider threat’ following reports that his tattoo with the words ‘Deus Vult,’ was allegedly a ‘Christian expression associated with right-wing extremism.’

Other sections seek to harp on Hegseth’s alleged unwillingness to work with allies, including those within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which Warren suggested Hegseth will not adequately support considering his ‘skepticism’ over aiding Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Warren devoted an entire line of questioning to whether Hegseth will ‘undermine’ veterans’ benefits, and questioned what Hegseth might do to the Department of Defense Education Activity, the part of the agency that educates troops’ children.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Trump Transition spokesperson Bran Hughes said that Hegseth ‘looks forward to answering Senators’ questions and detailing his many qualifications at his hearing tomorrow.’

‘Senator Warren’s letter to Pete Hegseth is exactly what the American voters rejected on November 5,’ Hughes said. ‘Instead of focusing on ‘woke’ policies that have weakened our national defense, the voters gave a mandate to rebuild our military, and that’s exactly what a reform-minded Secretary of Defense like Pete Hegseth will do. Senator Warren’s letter proves why ideologically driven college professors have no place driving their social agenda at the Department of Defense.’

Efforts to reach Warren for comment for purposes of this story were unsuccessful. 

Special Counsel David Weiss blasted President Biden in his highly-anticipated report on his years-long investigation into Hunter Biden, saying the commander-in-chief’s characterizations of the probe into his son were ‘wrong’ and ‘unfairly’ maligned Justice Department officials, while admitting that the presidential pardon made it ‘inappropriate’ for him to discuss whether any additional charges against the first son were warranted. 

Fox News Digital obtained a copy of Weiss’s final report after his years-long investigation into Hunter Biden.

The Justice Department transmitted the report to Congress on Monday evening. 

Weiss, in his report, chided President Biden for his Dec. 1, 2024 decision to grant his son a ‘Full and Unconditional Pardon’ covering nearly eleven years of conduct, including conduct related to both convictions the special counsel obtained. 

Hunter Biden was found guilty of three felony firearm offenses stemming from Special Counsel David Weiss’ investigation. The first son was also charged with federal tax crimes regarding the failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. Before his trial, Hunter Biden entered a surprise guilty plea. 

The charges carried up to 17 years behind bars. His sentencing was scheduled for Dec. 16, but his father, President Biden, pardoned him on all charges in December. 

Weiss, in the report, blasted the president’s decision to pardon but also the press release that was sent out to the public that ‘criticized the prosecution of his son as ‘selective,’ ‘unfair,’ ‘infected’ by ‘raw politics,’ and a ‘miscarriage of justice.”

‘This statement is gratuitous and wrong,’ Weiss wrote in his report. ‘Other presidents have pardoned family members, but in doing so, none have taken the occasion as an opportunity to malign the public servants at the Department of Justice based solely on false accusations.’ 

Weiss also pointed to a comment made by Judge Mark C. Scarsi, who said: ‘The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.’ 

‘These prosecutions were the culmination of thorough, impartial investigations, not partisan politics,’ Weiss wrote in his report. ‘Eight judges across numerous courts have rejected claims that they were the result of selective or vindictive motives.’ 

Weiss added: ‘Calling those rulings into question and injecting partisanship into the independent administration of the law undermines the very foundation of what makes America’s justice system fair and equitable. It erodes public confidence in an institution that is essential to preserving the rule of law.’ 

In another section of the report, Weiss notes that, in light of the presidential pardon, he ‘cannot make any additional charging decisions’ and said it would be ‘inappropriate’ to discuss ‘whether additional charges are warranted.’ 

‘Politicians who attack the decisions of career prosecutors as politically motivated when they disagree with the outcome of a case undermine the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system,’ Weiss wrote. ‘The President’s statements unfairly impugn the integrity not only of Department of Justice personnel, but all of the public servants making these difficult decisions in good faith.’ 

Weiss added: ‘The President’s characterizations are incorrect based on the facts in this case, and, on a more fundamental level, they are wrong.’ 

The federal investigation into Hunter Biden began in November 2018. 

But it wasn’t until 2023 that whistleblowers from the IRS, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, brought allegations of politicization in the federal probe of Hunter Biden to Congress. 

The two alleged that political influence had infected prosecutorial decisions in the federal probe, which was led by Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who they said had requested to become a special counsel. 

After Shapley and Ziegler testified publicly, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Weiss as special counsel to continue his investigation of the first son and, ultimately, bring federal charges against him in two separate jurisdictions — Delaware and California. 

Justice Department regulations require Weiss to transmit any final report to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has pledged to release as much as possible to the public. 

The Justice Department and Special Counsel Weiss’ office declined to comment. 

Meanwhile, President Biden’s pardon of his son came after months of vowing to the American people that he would not do so. 

But last month, the president announced a blanket pardon that applies to any offenses against the U.S. that Hunter Biden ‘has committed or may have committed’ from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024. 

‘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,’ Biden said. ‘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.’

Biden added, ‘I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision.’