Tipsheet

The Latest Allegation From Hunter Biden's Lawyers Is a Problem for Garland, DOJ

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  August 16, 2023 10:25 AM

With most of the media eagerly focused on round four of Trump indictments, a new development in the Biden family enrichment scandal this week seems rather significant.  When Hunter Biden's sweetheart plea deal cratered in open court late last month, the First Son's lawyers appeared to be caught off guard by prosecutors' response to a question posed by the judge.  The DOJ was forced to attest that no, the agreement forged with opposing counsel did not shield their client from future charges on matters such as FARA violations.  Hunter's stunned attorneys insisted this was not what had been discussed, strongly suggesting that the prosecution had indeed included an even more general future immunity clause into the already-controversial deal.  

If that assurance was suddenly off the table -- after the judge asked awkward questions about it -- then the pact was dead, they said.  Hunter pleaded not guilty to minimal charges and the proceedings moved toward a trial.  A trial for what, though?  As longtime federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy has noted on several occasions, prosecutors never obtained a grand jury indictment against Hunter Biden, summarizing their allegations, the evidence gathered, etc.  Why not?  He suggests the document would have looked awful when compared with the bare-minimum charges actually filed, and that indictment filings would have paused the clock on statutes of limitation expirations.  One of the DOJ's preferred pro-defendant tools in this case has been to allow those deadlines to run out on a number of serious felony charges, for no apparent reason other than to assist the supposed target of the investigation.  Said target, of course, is the son of the President of the United States, to whom the Justice Department answers.  

That glaring conflict of interest, by the way, is part of the rationale behind having a Special Counsel run the probe -- a point I'll return to shortly.  But first, let's flag the aforementioned new development in this case.  Hunter Biden's legal team formally attested this week that federal prosecutors had, in fact, "reneged" on an agreed-upon plea agreement that entailed the disputed and shocking 'future immunity' clause:

Government lawyers said in court papers on Friday that they and Mr. Biden were at an impasse over plea negotiations and that no agreement had been reached. Under the deal, Mr. Biden would plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and enroll in the diversion program, which would have allowed him to avert prosecution on a gun charge. But in the filing late Sunday, Mr. Biden rebutted the prosecutors’ claim, saying that he had signed the agreement in court last month and that he planned to abide by it...Mr. Clark, in a three-page response to the government’s motion to scrap the entire deal, accused Mr. Weiss of deciding to “renege on the previously agreed-upon plea agreement.” The part of the deal that included the gun diversion agreement — which included a broad grant of immunity from prosecution on any possible crimes that have been investigated, including the tax charges — had been signed by prosecutors and was therefore “binding” and still “in effect,” Mr. Clark wrote, along with Mr. Lowell.

The lawyers for the president's son say they'd extracted an exceptionally generous and mild agreement from prosecutors that included "a broad grant" of future immunity on any "possible crimes" that had been investigated, per the New York Times description.  When a skeptical judge inquired about this arrangement, the government's lawyers -- perhaps unwilling to publicly admit the scope of their giveaway, in response to a question they may have preferred had never been asked -- abruptly rejected a component of the agreement that the defense (understandably) viewed as essential.  So the framework died, and the government has now made clear that the deal is dead.  It would appear that a behind-closed-doors gentlemen's pledge of future immunity on all possible charges stemming from the US Attorney's years-long investigation into Hunter Biden was too politically-fraught and humiliating to confirm in open court, triggering the surprising chain of events that torpedoed the deal.  Maybe Hunter's lawyers are lying about what had been agreed upon (Clark is now out, incidentally, because he is likely to become a witness in the case, in regard to the now-torpedoed and disputed plea deal).  In this case, I'd unfortunately guess they are not.

One is left wondering what would have happened if the judge hadn't explored this curiosity in the manner and forum in which she did.  A cynic might conclude that the Justice Department would have informed the public that further charges might still be possible, so the probe technically remained "open," even as Hunter and company could rest assured that it was actually closed, as a practical matter.  And a cynic might very well be correct.  That bit of hypothetical misdirection would represent the cherry on top of a long sequence of pro-defendant decisions made by the figures in this case who are supposed to be prosecuting him.  McCarthy offers a devastating list of such accommodations in this analysis, concluding that the purpose of elevating of the man ultimately responsible for all of them, US Attorney David Weiss, is to allow Weiss to "continue killing" his own 'ongoing investigation' from within.

Recommended

Bucks County Dem Apologizes for Trying to Steal the PA Senate Race Matt Vespa
Why Again Do We Still Have a Special Relationship With the Tyrannical UK? Kurt Schlichter

As stunning as that suggestion may sound, it seems more than plausible, in light of the manner in which this investigation has, and has not, been conducted.  To promote a figure who's actively blocked and undermined any form of real reckoning for Hunter Biden, and explicitly forbidden investigative steps that might draw the scandal closer to Hunter's father, is to keep the charade going -- just with a new job title for Weiss.  As I wrote on Monday, it's quite fair to wonder why Attorney General Merrick Garland would retain confidence in Weiss after the plea deal embarrassment.  It's also fair to ask why Weiss was granted (extremely belated) special counsel status if, as both Weiss and Garland have insisted, he'd wielded all the authority he needed, all along.  My informed, and therefore cynical, speculation on those questions:

The White House and Democrats now have a shiny new talking point to wave around about the DOJ taking this so seriously that a vaunted special counsel is now involved.  Never mind that it's the same guy who's fashioned the most favorable legal and political outcomes imaginable for the Bidens, given the facts with which he's been presented.  Garland knows all of this, of course.  He's made what looks like a political play that offers a false veneer of independence (many in the press will eagerly play along with this) while actually freezing the corrupt-appearing status quo further into place.  Better still for the White House, the 'ongoing special counsel investigation' deflection also offers them with a handy line to further avoid talking about this at all.  And it allows fruitful GOP Congressional probes to be both stymied on process grounds and disparaged as partisan.

I made a number of these points on the Special Report panel last evening:


And when I wrote that many in the 'news' media would eagerly play along with Garland's gambit, this is what I meant:


Message: Oh, those stupid implacable Republicans. They demanded a special counsel, then they got one, and they're still angry -- those knee-jerk, bad faith partisans.  Of course, the substance of conservatives' criticisms against this special counsel appointment overwhelmingly pertains to the track record of David Weiss.  Republicans aren't objecting to Weiss for the sake of objection.  They're objecting to him specifically for multiple, demonstrable reasons.  Elites within the Democrat/media alliance know this full well, of course.  Their actions and framing of said actions are intentional.  They're not even being terribly subtle about it.  I suppose it's possible that Weiss truly has been stymied from above, is angry about how all of this has gone down, and will use his new status to aggressively pursue accountability.  But I'm not holding my breath. Why? I'll leave you with this: