Hunter Biden Seeks to Dismiss Felony Charges, Arguing DOJ Broke Agreement

Catherine Yang
By Catherine Yang
October 6, 2023Hunter Biden
Hunter Biden Seeks to Dismiss Felony Charges, Arguing DOJ Broke Agreement
Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, leaves the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building in Wilmington, Del., on Oct. 3, 2023. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell filed a notice in court Oct. 5 stating he will seek to dismiss the felony gun charges because they hold that the previous plea deal he agreed to is still in effect despite the prosecutor’s recent motion.

“Mr. Biden maintains that the ‘stand alone,’ ‘bilateral’ Diversion Agreement that both parties signed remains in force, and he will seek to dismiss the Indictment against him pursuant to the immunity provisions of that Agreement,” the filing reads.

Special counsel David Weiss has been leading the investigation into Hunter Biden for five years and was appointed special counsel earlier this year.

Prior to the appointment, he had brought tax misdemeanors charges against Mr. Biden in Delaware. The indictment was unsealed to reveal that Mr. Biden had entered into a plea bargain in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) was not bringing forth any gun charges in exchange for the guilty plea on the minor tax charges.

Plea Bargain

The plea bargain was widely panned by House Republicans who are investigating the Biden family’s finances on allegations that Mr. Biden received payments from foreign nationals because of his father’s position as vice president, as well as later when he was running for president.

IRS whistleblowers had approached the corresponding House committee and alleged the DOJ had purposely stymied the investigation, not allowing charges to be brought against Mr. Biden.

They had also said that Mr. Weiss, before he was special counsel, did not have the authority to bring charges against Mr. Biden in any jurisdiction, such as tax charges in California where Mr. Biden lived when he received large sums of money from Chinese nationals.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has publicly stated this was not the case. Later, he appointed Mr. Weiss as special counsel.

But when Mr. Biden was arraigned this summer, the plea bargain fell apart when the judge questioned some of the terms and requested additional information.

Mr. Weiss maintains the bargain was never formally entered into, while Mr. Lowell maintains that it is still in effect.

Mr. Weiss withdrew his tax case in Delaware after being appointed special counsel, citing jurisdiction issues, and would later bring the felony gun charges against Mr. Biden.

This week, he formally filed a motion to withdraw information previously filed about Mr. Biden’s gun charges—the one count related to illegal possession of a firearm. The three counts he now faces are punishable by a maximum of 25 years in prison.

“An information was filed in this case on June 20, 2023, because, at that time, the parties had negotiated a proposed diversion agreement which included a waiver of indictment,” Mr. Weiss wrote. “At the July 26, 2023 hearing, U.S. Probation declined to sign the diversion agreement. Therefore, it did not enter into effect and there was, as a result, no effective waiver of indictment.”

He noted that Judge Maryellen Noreika had questioned whether the plea bargain was even enforceable, or constitutional, and argued Mr. Biden never waived indictment at the hearing.

In the response Mr. Lowell filed, he argues his client is still immune.

“The only charge that the Special Counsel was permitted to bring under the Diversion Agreement is the charge in the Information,” the response reads. “If the Special Counsel no longer wishes to pursue that charge, it has the right to do that.”

“Further, Defendant’s position is that the enforceability of the Diversion Agreement has no bearing on the Special Counsel’s Motion to Dismiss, and any disputes regarding the effect and enforceability of the Diversion Agreement are not before the Court at this time.”

Mr. Lowell has previously said that the statute preventing drug users from owning guns is unconstitutional and has already been deemed as such in other cases, and that “on the facts” he has a successful defense.

From The Epoch Times

ntd newsletter icon
Sign up for NTD Daily
What you need to know, summarized in one email.
Stay informed with accurate news you can trust.
By registering for the newsletter, you agree to the Privacy Policy.