Hunter Biden plea: First son’s diversion agreement ‘much broader’ than judge expected
Kaelan Deese
Video Embed
A federal judge hit the brakes on approving Hunter Biden‘s plea agreement with federal prosecutors over a clause that indicated the deal had a “much broader” legal shield beyond the three criminal charges the president’s son faces.
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika was not satisfied with the agreement largely due to her concerns about the constitutionality of the terms laid out by U.S. Attorney David Weiss‘s office and the younger Biden’s legal counsel.
HUNTER BIDEN PLEA DEAL COLLAPSES IN COURT AS JUDGE THROWS ‘CURVEBALL’
The plea deal includes a large statement of facts that covers detailed accounts of the first son’s foreign business deals, his struggles with sobriety, and prolific spending.
But the paragraph Noreika took the most issue with was listed on Page 7 of the diversion agreement, according to a copy obtained by Politico, which is titled “Agreement Not to Prosecute.”
“The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of the Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached Statement of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day,” the diversion agreement read.
Former federal prosecutor Will Scharf, who is currently running for attorney general in Missouri, said it was during the hearing that Noreika realized the attorneys attempted to “paint her into a corner and hide the ball.”
“That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually much broader than just the gun charge,” Scharf shared in a post on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. “If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented the DOJ from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere.”
Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and conservative columnist, posted that Scharf made an “excellent assessment of what happened.”
The point at which Noreika saw the breakdown of the original plea agreement came when she asked attorneys whether the government can “bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act” in regard to Hunter Biden’s activity with foreign companies.
Prosecutor Leo Wise answered, “Yes.”
Noreika said she was trying to find out if there is a “meeting of the minds here” and that she wasn’t sure if the provision of the diversion agreement “isn’t part of the plea agreement and so that’s why I’m asking.”
Biden’s attorney Chris Clark then said: “As stated by the government just now, I don’t agree with what the government said.”
“Then there is no deal,” Wise responded.
It was at that point that Hunter Biden’s team and prosecutors began discussing among themselves how to move forward with the deal. The younger Biden later changed his position to plead “not guilty” over two misdemeanor tax violations and one felony charge of lying on a gun form.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Noreika gave the parties 30 days to come up with a new agreement, also underscoring that the previous terms that made her a “gatekeeper” of future charges against Biden must be restructured so that prosecutors can take action if the first son were to violate any terms of the plea agreement.
“I’m concerned that that provision makes me a gatekeeper to criminal charges and puts me in the middle of a decision as to whether to bring a charge,” Noreika said.