Deal or No Deal: Hunter Biden's Future Is in Limbo
The saga of Hunter Biden’s “sweetheart” plea deal continues to unravel. Yesterday we told you how the judge did not approve the plea agreement. Federal Judge Maryellen Noreika said she had concerns about the details of the plea and refused to simply “rubber stamp” it without hearing more details as to why she should, and that is where the plea deal fell apart.
As reported by the New York Times:
A federal judge on Wednesday put on hold a proposed plea deal between Hunter Biden and the Justice Department that would have settled tax and gun charges against the president’s son, stunning the courtroom and raising legal and constitutional questions about the agreement.
After moments of high drama in which the deal appeared headed toward collapse, the judge, Maryellen Noreika of the Federal District Court in Wilmington, Del., sent the two sides back to try to work out modifications that would address her concerns and salvage the basic contours of the agreement.
Under the proposed deal, Mr. Biden would have pleaded guilty to two tax misdemeanors and averted prosecution on a gun charge by enrolling in a two-year diversion program for nonviolent offenders.
Prosecutors and Mr. Biden’s team had both started the day confident that the
proceeding would go smoothly and the judge would sign off on the deal immediately. . . . But Judge Noreika had other ideas, telling the two sides repeatedly that she had no intention of being “a rubber stamp,” and spending three hours sharply questioning them over nearly every detail of the deal.
Normally, the plea deal comes out, and it’s more or less pro forma. But something about this particularly unique agreement didn’t pass the sniff test. That gave the judge pause over signing it, until Biden’s attorneys could provide satisfactory answers, which they clearly could not. As ACLJ Senior Counsel Andy Economou explained:
Usually, a negotiated plea is a very simple matter. Both sides know exactly what they want out of the deal. The government or the state knows what it’s going to give. The defendant knows what he’s going to get. You present it to the judge.
In federal court, it’s different. The federal judges don’t always accept guilty pleas as much as state court judges do. They may question them, as Judge Noreika did in this case. The judge asked some serious questions. What about this non-prosecution agreement? Am I getting into the business of being the Executive branch of government and giving him a pass on criminal charges for the future? Why am I agreeing to a plea agreement that sentences Hunter Biden on two tax charges but does not have anything to do with . . . but gives him basically non-prosecution status for all the other offenses that he is alleged to have committed in Ukraine, in China, with gun charges and so forth? Where is the breadth here? What is my authority to do that? Is it constitutional?
In other words, what you have is a United States district judge doing her duty and doing her obligation by asking the tough hard questions about what’s this plea deal about and what’s really at the bottom of it. And once that happened, it unraveled.
The judge rightly asked the attorneys if there was any precedent for this magical deal that sought to absolve Hunter of other possible charges not even involved, to which the answer was no. Clearly, Judge Noreika made the right call.
Today’s full Sekulow broadcast includes more analysis of the judge’s decision to reject this flawed plea agreement. We’re also joined on-air by Senator Marsha Blackburn (TN), who shared her reaction to the Biden proceedings, as well as ACLJ Senior Advisor and former U.S. Acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, who shared his reaction to reports of yet another indictment of former President Donald Trump potentially coming down before the end of the day. As we wrapped the broadcast, no such indictment had happened.
Watch the full broadcast below: