Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz accused prosecutors from the Department of Justice of giving Hunter Biden immunity for nothing.
Dershowitz, while On Friday’s broadcast of Newsmax TV’s “The Record,” maintained that Hunter’s collapsed plea deal is the opposite of how plea deals work.
Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax that the blanket immunity clause in Hunter Biden's diversion agreement was given away for nothing and speaks volumes. "Prosecutors know how to twist arms, and they use immunity as a weapon. https://t.co/d3mFMFqjMe pic.twitter.com/rPNqq1xNyw
— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) July 29, 2023
“Prosecutors know how to twist arms and they use immunity as a weapon. They don’t give it away for nothing,” Dershowitz. “And here, it seems to have been given away for nothing, especially since they had an open and shut case against him. It’s not as if people come in — I’ve done this on many occasions, I go into the prosecutor and I say, look, you’re not going to win this case. Here’s our defense: A, B, C, D, and here are the witnesses. And I scare the prosecutor into making a good deal. And there was nothing here to scare the prosecutor. The case on the guns was open and shut. … The case on the taxes was essentially admitted. So, there was nothing to bargain with.”
Dershowitz suggested that the reason for the immunity could be down to the fact that prosecutors did not want the first son to testify and implicate others.
“This immunity really sends a message, we don’t want to hear from you. We don’t want you to testify. We don’t want you to get other people in trouble,” Dershowitz said.
Hunter’s legal problems took a dramatic turn on Wednesday after his “sweetheart” plea deal fell apart. The first son was supposed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay taxes and enter a diversion program on a felony federal weapons charge.
However, US District Judge Maryellen Noreika raised some key concerns about the deal leading to its collapse. The judge raised concerns about the constitutionality of the deal and if the first son was still under any investigation. She also accused both sides of wanting her to rubber-stamp an improperly broad agreement.
The deal’s final breaking point came when Hunter’s lawyers and DOJ prosecutors failed to agree on the deal’s broadness. Hunter’s lawyers believed the deal meant that their client would be immune to any future prosecutions. In contrast, prosecutors believed the opposite and even revealed that the first son was still under a federal investigation.
