President Joe Biden shocked the nation this past weekend when he provided his son with a pardon for any crimes he has committed since the start of 2014.

A new report suggests that First Lady Jill Biden pushed for her stepson to be pardoned despite knowing that it would be poorly received by many Americans. 

Source: Hunter Biden "has no greater defender than Jill"

That's according to the Daily Mail, which cited a source said to be familiar with the family as stating that Hunter Biden "has no greater defender than Jill."

The newspaper noted that Mrs. Biden gave a full-throated endorsement of her husband's decision to absolve his son of criminal liability, telling reporters on Monday, "Of course I support the pardon of my son."

The Daily Mail also pointed out that the move was made despite President Biden having insisted for months that he had no intention of pardoning Hunter.

While Republicans were predictably outraged by Biden's pardon, even some on the left reacted with dissatisfaction. Among them was legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who wrote in a guest column for The New York Times that the pardon represented a "consummate act of nepotism."

"With the pardon of his son, Mr. Biden added his name to the roll call of presidents who dishonored their office by misusing the pardon power," Toobin added.

Judge: President cannot "rewrite history"

Meanwhile, Breitbart pointed out that a federal judge who presided over one of Hunter's criminal cases was similarly unimpressed.

In a five-page order released on Tuesday, District Judge Mark Scarsi denounced President Biden's claim that his son's prosecution had been politically driven.

JUST IN: Judge Scarsi trashes President Biden’s pardon for his son and the letter justifying it — saying it’s an attempt to rewrite history and impugns judges and DOJ personnel from his own administration. pic.twitter.com/YmHRK8S9mp

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 4, 2024

"A press release is not a pardon," Scarsi wrote. "The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history."

Judge questions whether pardon can apply to future crimes

"The President's own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges," he insisted.

"In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people," the judge declared.

What's more, Scarsi observed the pardon covered any and all federal offenses carried out between January 1, 2014 and December 1, 2024 despite being issued before the end of December 1. He then questioned whether a pardon can apply to future offenses.