Advertisement

Laura Ingraham Says Collapsed Hunter Biden Plea Deal Reveals DOJ Collusion

Advertisement

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.


Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Thursday discussed Hunter Biden’s plea deal after it fell apart in a Delaware federal courthouse the previous day, saying that it appeared as though the Justice Department was in “cahoots” with Biden’s defense lawyers.

Her remarks came after Biden’s plea agreement on two misdemeanor tax charges was in jeopardy during his Wednesday court appearance due to issues with immunity.

Initially, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika said she had “concerns” about the parties linking the tax plea agreement to a deal for a felony gun charge. Hunter Biden then pleaded “not guilty” to all his charges after the judge removed immunity from further prosecutions as part of his proposed plea deal.

“Prosecutors on Wednesday said Hunter Biden pleading guilty to the two misdemeanor tax offenses would not immunize him from future charges. The judge asked whether a potential violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act was under consideration, but prosecutors were tight-lipped on the matter. The judge put the court in recess and asked that federal prosecutors and Biden’s legal team discuss the plea deal, telling the court that they did not appear to be in agreement on the terms,” Fox News reported.

Ingraham, an attorney by trade, smelled a rat.

Advertisement

“Now the details of the now defunct Hunter Biden plea show once again how far the legal system will bend to accommodate and ultimately protect the Bidens. So the rule of law is always an afterthought for these people. What’s important is keeping Joe Biden in power,” she said to begin a monologue.

She added:

So after combing through both the plea agreement itself, as well as the transcript of yesterday’s court proceedings, The Angle understands why there was such a concerted effort to keep it all from the public. Now, the most damning provision, and one we hit briefly last night would have granted absurdly broad immunity to Hunter Biden.

Very conveniently, it would have covered every crime he may have committed during the relevant time frame. Presumably stuff regarding his lucrative business dealings with foreign entities based in China, Romania, Ukraine and God knows where else.

Now the effort to shield Hunter from further investigations — this is an explosive development, and it begs the question, if all these relationships he had with foreign business interests were on the up and up, now, why would the first son and why would his legal team think he needed this expansive immunity deal? And why wasn’t this known until yesterday?

Advertisement

Well, I’ll tell you why, because it appears that the lawyers from Joe Biden’s DOJ and Hunter’s legal team were in cahoots. The secret get out of jail free arrangement was hidden in paragraph 15 of something called the Pretrial Diversion Agreement, not even the deal itself. So when Judge Noreika discovered the scope of the immunity and then the unconstitutional role it would have conferred upon her, she was not happy.

“So have you ever seen — I think I just asked you this, but have you ever seen a Diversion Agreement where the agreement not to prosecute is so broad that it encompasses crimes in a different case?” Noreika asked, according to a court transcript.

“No,” Wise replied. “And I would say Your Honor, I don’t think it is broad in the sense that —”

The judge interrupted at that point: “We’re going to talk about that. You can sit down.”

Test your skills with this Quiz!

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri told CNN the back-and-forth in court shows the deal was flawed and that more charges could be coming down.

“It’s very telling that the judge intervened here and said basically, ‘No, I’m not going to approve some sweeping blanket deal,’” the Republican from Missouri said. “I mean, that tells you the court has serious concerns about other potential charges here and also the scope of the deal, which has seemed outrageous from the beginning. This, I think, signals that they’re still very much as potential for prosecution forward.”

Advertisement