Question

Hunter Biden was pardoned because he and his whole family were receiving foreign bribes.

---

Have you bothered looking at the Biden crime family? You do know why Hunter had to be pardoned right? The entire family was taking foreign bribes. Yet, if Hunters last name was Trump, you'd lose your little brainwashed mind!

Answer 1

Hunter Biden was pardoned by former president Joe Biden on December 1, 2024 for all crimes committed leading to his incarceration. Biden pardoned his son as a result of "raw politics [having] infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice." Additionally, there is no basis to support claims of the Biden family accepting any form of foreign bribery. In fact, the ex FBI informant Alexander Smirnov who completely made up a story about them accepting bribes in order to aid in Republican impeachment efforts was just recently sentenced to six years in prison. The pardon reasoning remains as Biden seeing that the trial ruling as unfit to have any reasonable merit.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-issues-pardons-to-his-family-members-in-final-act-in-office-citing-unrelenting-attacks-from-trump-and-allies

https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-fbi-informant-alexander-smirnov-burisma-7bedb315c86580b5d88b07f4fe315207

Comments

You clearly and concisly provide the correct reason he was pardoned while also containing an important piece of information that seemed to be ignored by the poster, and you provide more than one source to back it up.

---

Utilizing quotes to back up your answer strengthens your overall argument. I enjoyed your use of three sources to really see how other perspectives hone in on what you're arguing.

---

While it's accurate that President Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, on December 1, 2024, it's crucial to note that the pardon was for federal offenses related to gun and tax charges, not for any bribery allegations.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/16/fbi-informant-biden-bribery-00194626

Answer 2

When making this claim, what sources did you use, as the social media account linked provides no other insight on this statement? Currently, the Department of Justice is reviewing the case of Alexander Smirnov, the former Israeli-American informant, who lied to his FBI handler about the connection of a Ukrainian energy company to President Biden, as I read the ABC News article that was written today as an update on the review of Smirnov's case. In January, he was arrested and sentenced to six years for fabricating lies about former President Biden and his son Hunter Biden, illustrating that the accusations of bribery or any foreign engagement that was not government-regulated are false. 

ABC News: Trump Administration Reviewing Case of FBI Informant

Comments

Your response explains the situation a lot than the original claim because of your more in-depth analysis into the topic. Your response is also more convincing because you cite a source. I think it was also good how you challenged the original claim regarding the methodology used to create it.

---

Thank you for adding context to this claim. The original post didn't have any reliable sources. After some further digging, I found another article supporting your answer.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5244461-trump-administration-doj-alexander-smirnov-fbi-biden-bribery/

---

Your comment provides much needed context. The original claim lacked any concrete sources to back it up besides a personal twitter account. You provided a trustworthy source, and gave reasoning as to why it shows the original claim was false.

---

You raise an important point about the lack of sourcing in the original claim. In addition, the bribery allegations against the Bidens were indeed fabricated by Alexander Smirnov, a former FBI informant. Smirnov pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI and was sentenced to six years in prison. His fabricated claims were central to Republican-led impeachment efforts against President Biden. Furthermore, the Department of Justice is reviewing Smirnov's case, underscoring his misconduct.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/16/fbi-informant-biden-bribery-00194626
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-seeks-release-ex-fbi-informant-who-admitted-fabricating-biden-claims-2025-04-11/

---

Your comment provides negates the fact that the Bidens were accepting bribes. I have attached another article that supports how the claim that they were accepting bribes is not true.
https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-fbi-informant-joe-biden-ef48c7543e7a45cd3b8b671d0e2f60e5

---

You state the claim is false, but I see "true" marked on the fact-check...clarification please!

Answer 3

There is no verifiable evidence that Hunter Biden has received a presidential pardon for the charge of bribery, and the bribery allegations stem from discredited sources. This claim is frequently circulating on social media platforms, often without citations. Some versions trace back to partisan or unreliable sources with no credible journalistic standards. Verified sources such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, ABC News, and the DOJ contradict the claim. In most viral versions of this claim, there’s no listed author, just a username or anonymous account. If an article or post doesn't list a legitimate journalist or has no linked credentials (e.g., LinkedIn, professional bylines), it’s a red flag. Some misleading posts cite events from 2020–2022 and mash them up with newer misinformation from 2024. It's important to note: Hunter Biden was pardoned for felony gun and tax charges, NOT bribery https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

There is no evidence of foreign bribery involving the Biden family. The core of this claim is based on disinformation from a now-indicted informant, and it's being spread by biased, unreliable sources. 

Answer 4

This claim is false, Hunter Biden has not been pardoned. You can search the official presidential pardon list and news sources and see that no such pardon has happened. While there have been investigations into his foreign business dealings, no solid evidence has been found proving the Biden family received foreign bribes. Even a recent House GOP investigation hasn't produced direct evidence of bribery. If you’re going to make claims like this, they should be backed by more than just a social media post. 

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-denied-2023

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/08/scicheck-no-evidence-hunter-biden-has-been-pardoned/

https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-investigations-republicans-9ce29b5fa5f7df83dbfe0adf70ec7a7e

Comments

Hunter was pardoned, but we are determining if it's related to foreign bribes. Here's the link about him being pardoned by his dad. https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

Answer 5

I can see where this claim is coming from and I don't disagree but maybe diving deeper into about the "bribe" as they say. The article I found says that it was majority a conspiracy theory and that they were all allegations. Because they didn't find and serious proof overall. This article I found says he can be facing the maximum sentence of 17 years. But that federal crimes are usually less then the max time. But overall I do agree but digging deeper into the articles is better when trying to get better evidence. You had a excellent claim and evidence to this claim.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco-weiss/pr/robert-hunter-biden-convicted-three-felony-tax-offenses-and-six-misdemeanor-tax-offenses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory#:~:text=In%20June%202020%2C%20a%20confidential,ensure%20Shokin%20would%20be%20fired.

Comments

I appreciate your answer. I was wondering why include wikipedia as a source, as commonly know it is not a great source. It can be a great starting point to find reputable sources, but is not one it's self. That does not mean the response is untrue, but with one source being a government sight verses one being wikipedia, it got me think about the validity of the later.

---

Thanks for the fact-check. If you want to use Wikipedia, you should check their citiations and go directly to it and avoid Wikipedia since it's user curated.