President Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter has drawn scrutiny from both sides of the aisle

as several of President-elect Trump's, uh, rather as several of President-elect Trump's

picks continue to face heavy scrutiny on Capitol Hill.

On that and other issues shaping the transition, we turn now to the analysis tonight of Brooks

and Capehart. That's New York Times

columnist David Brooks and Jonathan K. Part, associate editor for the Washington Post. Good to see you both.

So let's start our conversation where we started the week. President Biden's sweeping pardon of his son,

Hunter, which was notable because he came to office vowing to restore the independence of the Justice Department,

and he repeatedly said he would not pardon or commute his son's sentence.

Jonathan, in your view, was it justified? And what's the lasting impact?

Well, one, yes, it was justified.

When the president said that he would not pardon his son, when Grant clemency,

the facts on the ground were

completely different. It's the middle of a presidential campaign. He was the candidate for president,

didn't want to be viewed as interfering. He's no longer the candidate. His vice president is

the presidential nominee. I am almost certain, 99% certain that President Biden was hoping that Vice President

Harris would win and that this would not be an issue.

But when the person who won the race, won the race by vowing a campaign through a campaign

of retribution, revenge, naming the Biden family in general, and Hunter Biden in particular as someone or groups of people he wanted to go after if he won election

Of course the president looks at the facts that I cannot allow that to happen to my son and for the in I understand the the criticisms and the brickbats that the president is taking.

But for some Democrats to be complaining about the fact, well, you've ruined norms and you've

given him an avenue, have they not been paying attention to who Donald Trump is

...