Update (1332ET): In yet another wild turn of events, today's court session ended with Hunter Biden's plea deal placed on hold, and Hunter pleading not guilty for the time being.
US District Judge Maryellen Noreika said she was not ready to accept the plea deal, and has asked both sides to file additional briefs explaining the legal structure of the revised deal.
The hearing was temporarily derailed when judge Noreika said she didn’t understand what Hunter Biden could still be charged with. She asked questions that exposed a difference of understanding between Justice Department prosecutors and Biden’s lawyer, Chris Clark.
“I don’t really understand the scope” of the agreement, Noreika said. She noted that Biden has had numerous foreign business dealings. At one point, she raised a hypothetical as to whether Biden could be charged as acting as an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. -Bloomberg
She also called the deal federal prosecutors reached with Hunter over his gun possession offense "unusual," and that it contains some "non-standard terms," such as "broad immunity" from other potential charges.
"We don't usually make diversion agreements public," she said.
Leo Wise, an assistant US attorney representing the government at the hearing, said that Biden could still be charged with a FARA violation. His statement prompted Clark to object to the scope of what Biden could still be charged with.
Noreika asked the prosecutors and defense lawyers to resolve their differences about the plea agreement and temporarily adjourned the hearing.
When the hearing resumed, Wise and Clark said they were in agreement that the non-prosecution aspects of the deal will be limited to only tax violations, drug offenses and a firearm violation during the years 2014 to 2019. Biden can still be charged for crimes outside the scope of the deal. -Bloomberg
Under the original plea agreement, Biden intended to plea guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes committed in 2017 and 2018, and would avoid prison on the gun possession charge.
As part of the conditions for Hunter's release, he must not consume alcohol or prohibited drugs, or possess a firearm, must submit to random drug tests as required, must actively seek employment and not violate any laws.
* * *
Update (1258ET): Hunter Biden pleaded guilty in federal court on Wednesday to tax offenses, after accepting a revised, more limited plea deal with the government after the judge expressed concerns over the time frame that the original agreement covered.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers and federal prosecutors came to an agreement during the hearing to limit the plea deal to apply to only tax crimes, drug offenses and a firearm violation between the years 2014 to 2019. Under the terms of the deal, the government won’t prosecute Hunter Biden for those offenses during those years. -Bloomberg
According to prosecutors, there is still an ongoing investigation which may carry future charges outside the scope of the plea deal.
Biden pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes, and will avoid prison charge for possessing a gun while addicted to an illegal drug.
The deal sought to cap a five-year investigation into Hunter's tax affairs and business dealings, which federal prosecutors say Hunter failed to pay over $100,000 of income tax on at least $1.5 million in income between 2017 and 2018.
The proposed agreement has become a lightning rod for conservatives who claim the Justice Department failed to fully investigate the business dealings of the Biden family, including President Biden, and gave Hunter Biden politically favorable treatment.
On the eve of the plea hearing, House Republicans asked the judge to throw out the agreement reached with prosecutors, an unusual step of seeking to intervene in the case. Representative Jason Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, filed a brief urging the judge to consider the testimony of two IRS workers who during a panel claimed that Hunter Biden received preferential treatment from the Justice Department, according to the filing, a copy of which was seen by Bloomberg.
And of course, nothing about Hunter operating as his family's international bag man or selling access to his father.
* * *
Update (1240ET): It appears that Hunter Biden's plea deal is back on the table, after the defense agreed to a limited agreement which covers 2014 to 2019 and only includes conduct related to tax offenses, drug use and gun possession.
Hunter will still plead guilty to tax misdemeanors for 2017 and 2018, however the agreement will also cover his tax-related matters for the preceding three years.
Both sides agree that this deal doesn't shield Hunter from future charges.
As CNN reports;
The judge is asking Hunter Biden a series of questions about the facts that are included in the charging documents.
The judge asked Biden for the names of the foreign companies where he has worked.
"The Ukrainian energy company was Burisma," Biden said. Biden has also mentioned his work for a Chinese energy company, CEFC. His ties to that company have come under intense scrutiny by House Republicans.
The judge asked Biden, "You did know that you owed tax money, right?"
Biden said, "Yes, your honor."
* * *
Update (1200ET): Hunter Biden's plea deal with the Justice Department fell apart on Wednesday, according to federal prosecutors and the defense. The First Son had been expected to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and for not paying federal taxes on crime.
According to journalist Paul Sperry, Hunter "had hoped to convince court & media scrum after pleading that the only reason he evaded paying millions in taxes was b/c of his drug-addled grief over his brother's death in mid-2015; however, he failed to pay hundreds thousands taxes on Burisma $ in 2014."
Regime media, meanwhile, is having a meltdown.
* * *
Hunter Biden's lawyers face sanctions after they were accused on Tuesday night of an ethical violation by impersonating a government attorney in order to try and have an amicus (or "friend of the court") brief removed from a filing in his criminal tax case.
The amicus in question is 448 pages of congressional testimony from IRS whistleblowers.
Earlier Tuesday, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith filed the brief with the court, which suggests that the judge, Maryellen Noreika, toss Hunter's 'sweetheart' plea deal with Delaware prosecutors due to preferential treatment.
Later that day, someone from Hunter's attorney Chris Clark's former law firm called the Delaware clerk, allegedly pretending to be from the office of Chairman Smith's attorney, Theodore Kittila, asking the court to remove the original filing - and the attached 448-pages of Congressional testimony from the whistleblowers.
The documents were then taken down and sealed.
The real Kittila quickly filed an outraged letter with the court, asking for a reversal.
"We promptly contacted the clerk's office, and we were advised that someone contacted the court representing that they worked with my office and that they were asking the court to remove this from the docket," wrote Kittila, adding "We immediately advised that this was inaccurate."
More via the Daily Mail:
In a fiery email exchange with Kittila about the apparent skullduggery, Hunter's lawyer Clark hit back, denying any improper conduct and claiming 'the clerk took the filing down on their own accord'.
But the top Republican's lawyer included in his filing a copy of an email from the Delaware clerk, backing up his claims.
'The woman who called was a Jessica Bengels,' he wrote adding her phone number.
'She said she worked with Theodore Kittila and it was important the document was removed immediately,' the clerk, Sam Grimes, wrote to Kittila.
According to Grimes's email, the alleged trickster is New York-based Latham & Watkins litigation services director Jessica Bengels.
Bengels' LinkedIn page says she has been 'litigation services counsel' at the firm since January 2023, and has worked there since 2006. She went to Brown University then Fordham law school.
Clark worked for Latham & Watkins up until April this year. -Daily Mail
Hunter's lawyers, meanwhile, claim that the filing contained "personal tax information," and should therefore be sealed, despite the fact that the House Ways and Means Committee released the same documents publicly a month ago.
"Your attempts to publicly file my client's personal financial information with no protections are improper, illegal and in violation of applicable rules," Clark wrote to Kittila, adding "I stand by my statements."
Judge is pissed
In a Tuesday afternoon order, Judge Noreika demanded Hunter's lawyers explain themselves.
"It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the clerk's office to remove the amicus materials from the docket," reads the order. "Therefore, it is hereby ordered that, on or before 9pm today on July 25, 2023, counsel for defendant shall show cause as to why sanctions should not be considered for misrepresentations to the court."
Hunter's lawyers responded, claiming it was nothing more than a "an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication."
"The matter under consideration appears to stem from an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication between a staff member at our firm and employees of the Court. We have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is there was no misrepresentation," wrote Hunter's Latham & Watkins lawyer Matthew Salerno in response - blaming a convoluted game of telephone tag.
"We stand prepared to address any inquiries of the Court to rectify this misunderstanding. Should the Court consider this letter and the accompanying materials to be an insufficient explanation for this misunderstanding, we request an opportunity to more fully brief and be heard on the issues of concern to the Court," the response continues.
As Jonathan Turley notes;
The entire matter could be a misunderstanding, but the clerk clearly did not think so. The problem for Hunter could be a delay in accepting the plea bargain. It is not clear what additional evidence the Court could secure on the issue, but it could want interviews on the record.
I still believe that it is unlikely that the court would refuse to sign off on the plea bargain. Most judges are leery of demanding more charges against a defendant. That is a matter usually left to the discretion of the prosecutors. The investigation and implications of this dubious deal will ultimately be left to Congress.
covered.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers and federal prosecutors came to an agreement during the hearing to limit the plea deal to apply to only tax crimes, drug offenses and a firearm violation between the years 2014 to 2019. Under the terms of the deal, the government won’t prosecute Hunter Biden for those offenses during those years. -Bloomberg
According to prosecutors, there is still an ongoing investigation which may carry future charges outside the scope of the plea deal.
Biden pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes, and will avoid prison charge for possessing a gun while addicted to an illegal drug.
The deal sought to cap a five-year investigation into Hunter's tax affairs and business dealings, which federal prosecutors say Hunter failed to pay over $100,000 of income tax on at least $1.5 million in income between 2017 and 2018.
The proposed agreement has become a lightning rod for conservatives who claim the Justice Department failed to fully investigate the business dealings of the Biden family, including President Biden, and gave Hunter Biden politically favorable treatment.
On the eve of the plea hearing, House Republicans asked the judge to throw out the agreement reached with prosecutors, an unusual step of seeking to intervene in the case. Representative Jason Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, filed a brief urging the judge to consider the testimony of two IRS workers who during a panel claimed that Hunter Biden received preferential treatment from the Justice Department, according to the filing, a copy of which was seen by Bloomberg.
And of course, nothing about Hunter operating as his family's international bag man or selling access to his father.
* * *
Update (1240ET): It appears that Hunter Biden's plea deal is back on the table, after the defense agreed to a limited agreement which covers 2014 to 2019 and only includes conduct related to tax offenses, drug use and gun possession.
Hunter will still plead guilty to tax misdemeanors for 2017 and 2018, however the agreement will also cover his tax-related matters for the preceding three years.
Both sides agree that this deal doesn't shield Hunter from future charges.
As CNN reports;
The judge is asking Hunter Biden a series of questions about the facts that are included in the charging documents.
The judge asked Biden for the names of the foreign companies where he has worked.
"The Ukrainian energy company was Burisma," Biden said. Biden has also mentioned his work for a Chinese energy company, CEFC. His ties to that company have come under intense scrutiny by House Republicans.
The judge asked Biden, "You did know that you owed tax money, right?"
Biden said, "Yes, your honor."
* * *
Update (1200ET): Hunter Biden's plea deal with the Justice Department fell apart on Wednesday, according to federal prosecutors and the defense. The First Son had been expected to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and for not paying federal taxes on crime.
According to journalist Paul Sperry, Hunter "had hoped to convince court & media scrum after pleading that the only reason he evaded paying millions in taxes was b/c of his drug-addled grief over his brother's death in mid-2015; however, he failed to pay hundreds thousands taxes on Burisma $ in 2014."
Regime media, meanwhile, is having a meltdown.
* * *
Hunter Biden's lawyers face sanctions after they were accused on Tuesday night of an ethical violation by impersonating a government attorney in order to try and have an amicus (or "friend of the court") brief removed from a filing in his criminal tax case.
The amicus in question is 448 pages of congressional testimony from IRS whistleblowers.
Earlier Tuesday, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith filed the brief with the court, which suggests that the judge, Maryellen Noreika, toss Hunter's 'sweetheart' plea deal with Delaware prosecutors due to preferential treatment.
Later that day, someone from Hunter's attorney Chris Clark's former law firm called the Delaware clerk, allegedly pretending to be from the office of Chairman Smith's attorney, Theodore Kittila, asking the court to remove the original filing - and the attached 448-pages of Congressional testimony from the whistleblowers.
The documents were then taken down and sealed.
The real Kittila quickly filed an outraged letter with the court, asking for a reversal.
"We promptly contacted the clerk's office, and we were advised that someone contacted the court representing that they worked with my office and that they were asking the court to remove this from the docket," wrote Kittila, adding "We immediately advised that this was inaccurate."
More via the Daily Mail:
In a fiery email exchange with Kittila about the apparent skullduggery, Hunter's lawyer Clark hit back, denying any improper conduct and claiming 'the clerk took the filing down on their own accord'.
But the top Republican's lawyer included in his filing a copy of an email from the Delaware clerk, backing up his claims.
'The woman who called was a Jessica Bengels,' he wrote adding her phone number.
'She said she worked with Theodore Kittila and it was important the document was removed immediately,' the clerk, Sam Grimes, wrote to Kittila.
According to Grimes's email, the alleged trickster is New York-based Latham & Watkins litigation services director Jessica Bengels.
Bengels' LinkedIn page says she has been 'litigation services counsel' at the firm since January 2023, and has worked there since 2006. She went to Brown University then Fordham law school.
Clark worked for Latham & Watkins up until April this year. -Daily Mail
Hunter's lawyers, meanwhile, claim that the filing contained "personal tax information," and should therefore be sealed, despite the fact that the House Ways and Means Committee released the same documents publicly a month ago.
"Your attempts to publicly file my client's personal financial information with no protections are improper, illegal and in violation of applicable rules," Clark wrote to Kittila, adding "I stand by my statements."
Judge is pissed
In a Tuesday afternoon order, Judge Noreika demanded Hunter's lawyers explain themselves.
"It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the clerk's office to remove the amicus materials from the docket," reads the order. "Therefore, it is hereby ordered that, on or before 9pm today on July 25, 2023, counsel for defendant shall show cause as to why sanctions should not be considered for misrepresentations to the court."
Hunter's lawyers responded, claiming it was nothing more than a "an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication."
"The matter under consideration appears to stem from an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication between a staff member at our firm and employees of the Court. We have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is there was no misrepresentation," wrote Hunter's Latham & Watkins lawyer Matthew Salerno in response - blaming a convoluted game of telephone tag.
"We stand prepared to address any inquiries of the Court to rectify this misunderstanding. Should the Court consider this letter and the accompanying materials to be an insufficient explanation for this misunderstanding, we request an opportunity to more fully brief and be heard on the issues of concern to the Court," the response continues.
As Jonathan Turley notes;
The entire matter could be a misunderstanding, but the clerk clearly did not think so. The problem for Hunter could be a delay in accepting the plea bargain. It is not clear what additional evidence the Court could secure on the issue, but it could want interviews on the record.
I still believe that it is unlikely that the court would refuse to sign off on the plea bargain. Most judges are leery of demanding more charges against a defendant. That is a matter usually left to the discretion of the prosecutors. The investigation and implications of this dubious deal will ultimately be left to Congress.
Loading...
