Advertisement

Judge Dismisses Tax Charges Against Hunter Biden, Setting Up Potential Trial

Advertisement

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


The federal judge who last month refused to sign off on a ‘sweetheart’ plea deal involving Hunter Biden has just upped the ante in his case.

U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika on Friday dismissed a pair of misdemeanor tax charges against the first son at the request of the U.S. attorney investigating the case, David Weiss, who himself was appointed as a special counsel earlier this month by U.S. Attorney Merrick Garland to continue investigating Hunter.

UPI reported that “Weiss asked the court to do so last week after the plea deal fell apart in court as both sides failed to agree on whether its terms stipulated that Hunter Biden would be immune from facing future related charges.”

“The dismissal allows for Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, to be charged with the same or new offenses that could be tested in trial,” the report continued, adding that Hunter is the first son of a sitting president to be charged by the Department of Justice.

Advertisement

Since the Trump administration, Weiss has been actively probing Hunter Biden’s tax affairs and business engagements. The investigation persisted even after the Biden administration assumed office in 2021, but that’s likely because the president knew it wasn’t going to go anywhere, according to Republicans who were critical of the initial plea bargain and the appointment of Weiss as a special counsel.

“In June, it was announced that Hunter Biden would plead guilty to two misdemeanor charges for failing to pay federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018. He also agreed to enter a pretrial diversion agreement to avoid prosecution over possession of a firearm in October 2018 despite knowing it was illegal to do so as he was a user of a controlled substance at that time,” UPI reported.

Advertisement

In late July, Fox News host Laura Ingraham addressed the plea deal after it fell apart in Noreika’s Delaware courthouse the previous day, saying that it appeared as though the Justice Department was in “cahoots” with Biden’s defense lawyers.

The deal collapsed after 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.

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?

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.

Advertisement
Test your skills with this Quiz!