A federal judge has rejected Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal after prosecutors and Hunter’s attorneys failed to agree on the extent of the first son’s immunity.
🚨BREAKING🚨
HUNTER BIDEN PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO ALL CHARGES AFTER PLEA DEAL IS JEOPARDIZED pic.twitter.com/HHpLbp9zWK
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 26, 2023
Hunter was expected to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax in exchange for no jail time and diversion on a felony gun charge.
Hunter’s attorney believed their client’s plea deal would provide him blanket immunity on other criminal charges. However, the presiding judge —Judge Maryellen Noreika— rejected the deal after prosecutors told her that some of the offenses under the immunity were still under investigation.
During the plea hearing, the judge asked the DOJ’s prosecutor Leo Wise if the first son was still under any investigation. Wise confirmed that there was but refused to reveal the details of the investigations to the judge.
NYTimes Reporter Glenn Thrush reporting from the courtroom: Hunter Biden’s lawyers repeatedly cast the deal as the final chapter of the five-year inquiry into the president's son. But Judge Noreika quickly punctured that assertion when she asked a prosecutor, Leo Wise, if the…
— Sol Wisenberg (@WisenbergSol) July 26, 2023
Wise also confirmed to the judge that the DOJ could still bring future charges related to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) against Hunter.
The judge maintained that she could not accept the deal because it was structured in a way that made her just a rubber stamp.
Again from NYT's Glenn Thrush reporting from the courtroom: "From the start, the judge seemed highly skeptical of the unusual deal — which offered Hunter Biden broad immunity from prosecution in perpetuity, questioning why it had been filed under a provision that gave her no…
— Sol Wisenberg (@WisenbergSol) July 26, 2023
The judge also suggested that it was inappropriate for Hunter to get immunity for offenses that are still under investigation.
The judge further questioned the constitutionality of the diversion deal related to the felony gun charge. The deal required Hunter to plead guilty to the misdemeanor tax charges and behave under certain terms of the agreement for 24 months. In exchange, the government would not charge Hunter with the more serious federal gun charge.
Noreika revealed that if Hunter breached the deal, she would need to make a finding of fact on the matter before the government could bring charges against Hunter. The judge argued she would be wielding the power of the executive branch to bring charges if Hunter breached the terms of the diversion deal.
The judge added that if the diversion agreement was unconstitutional, Hunter’s entire plea deal would be unconstitutional.
The judges also asked prosecutors if there was any precedence for the deal, to which DOJ lawyers said there was none.
