Less than 24 hours after President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden and criticized his prosecution as a “miscarriage of justice,” prosecutors in special counsel David Weiss’ office defended the integrity of their work in a court filing and fiercely rebutted the president’s allegation that their charges were motivated by politics.

“In total, eleven different [federal] judges appointed by six different presidents, including his father, considered and rejected the defendant’s claims, including his claims for selective and vindictive prosecution,” wrote prosecutor Leo Wise in a ten-page filing Monday.

President Biden on Sunday issued a blanket pardoned to his son, who earlier this year was convicted on federal gun charges and pleaded guilty to separate tax-related charges, and was scheduled to be sentenced in both cases later this month.

In Monday’s filing, prosecutors urged the federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s tax case in California not to dismiss his indictment, and instead close the docket — which would allow the record to continue to exist.

“The government does not challenge that the defendant has been the recipient of an act of mercy. But that does not mean the grand jury’s decision to charge him, based on a finding of probable cause, should be wiped away as if it never occurred,” Wise wrote. “It also does not mean that his charges should be wiped away because the defendant falsely claimed that the charges were the result of some improper motive.”

Mark Osler, an expert in presidential pardons at the University of St. Thomas, said Weiss’ overture raises “a technical issue — either way, the case goes away — but an important one.”

“[Prosecutors] want the indictment to remain on the record,” he told ABC News.

Without directly addressing President Biden’s criticism of the case as selective and unfair, the filing highlighted how Hunter Biden’s lawyers made “every conceivable argument” to dismiss the case and failed to provide evidence that prosecution was vindictive.

“The court similarly found his vindictive prosecution claims unmoored from any evidence or even a coherent theory as to vindictiveness,” the filing said. “And there was none and never has been any evidence of vindictive or selective prosecution in this case. The defendant made similar baseless accusations in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Those claims were also rejected.”