President Biden is accused of trying to "redefine history" with his decision to pardon his son Hunter Biden.

The federal judge presiding over Hunter Biden's tax case criticized President Biden's assertion that his son was unfairly treated and that the president's pardon was delivered in an unjust manner.

President Biden was accused by U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, who is based in the Central District of California and was nominated by President-elect Trump, of "rewriting history" with the pardon and suggested that the breadth of the pardon granted to his son is unconstitutional.

The Constitution grants the President broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, but nowhere does it give the President the authority to rewrite history.

The president's decision to announce his son's pardon through a White House press release displeased the judge.

Instead of giving a true and accurate copy of the pardon along with the notice, Mr. Biden shared a hyperlink to a White House press release containing the President's statement about the pardon and the supposed text of the pardon.

He clarified that a press release is not a pardon.

READ – APP USERS CLICK HERE:

Scarsi responded to the president's assertion that Mr. Biden was treated differently due to his son's tax case, stating that Mr. Biden was not among those individuals who paid taxes late due to addiction.

According to the President, "no reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cases can reach any other conclusion than [Mr. Biden] was singled out only because he is [the President’s] son." However, two federal judges rejected Biden's arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President. Additionally, the President's own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.

The President believes that this group of federal civil servants, including the undersigned, are unreasonable individuals.

The judge stated that he would dispose of the case after receiving the official pardon from the "appropriate executive agency."

The charges against Hunter Biden carried a maximum of 17 years in prison, but he would have likely received a shorter sentence under federal sentencing guidelines.

The Court assumes the pardon is effective and will dispose of the case, subject to the following discussion. The Supreme Court recognizes that, although the pardon power is nearly unlimited, it extends only to past offenses.

In 2021, Hunter Biden, 54, has been occupied with legal proceedings, beginning with a trial in Delaware in June for three felony firearm charges, followed by a guilty plea in a separate felony tax case in September.

Biden's decision to pardon his son marks a shift from his earlier statement that he would not grant clemency to his son.

President Biden stated to ABC News that he would not pardon Hunter before his conviction in the gun case.

After a jury of his peers found him guilty of three felony firearm offenses, the president reiterated that he would not pardon his son.

"After Hunter was convicted, Biden stated, "I will abide by the jury's decision, and I won't do anything.""

Planet Chronicle Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

Planet Chronicle Digital's Emma Colton and Andrea Margolis contributed to this report.