The plea deal consisted of a “plea agreement” and a “diversion agreement” that would have protected Hunter Biden from foreign lobbying crimes and other felonies.
QUICK FACTS:
- Hunter Biden could have received a plea deal that would have given him extensive immunity from various crimes.
- In the recent hearing, Biden was expected to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax crimes and a diversion deal for a federal gun charge.
- U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika stopped the plea deal, instead questioning the nuances of the agreement.
- She asked, “If you had no immunity from the government, perhaps even a different prosecutor and the government could bring a felony tax evasion charge or drug charges against you, would you still enter the plea agreement and plead guilty to these tax charges?”
- “No, your honor,” Biden replied, according to transcripts of the hearing.
- The judge confirmed her understanding, saying, “You would not agree to that plea agreement if you didn’t get some immunity from other charges, is that right?”
- Biden’s attorney responded, “Speaking for my client, that’s correct, your honor.”
- After a moment of discussion, Biden’s attorney stated, “There are two agreements in this case. They are both very important to the Defendant.”
- “One is a plea agreement that the Court has before it and my client is ready to enter a plea to that plea agreement without contingency, without reservation, and without connection. There is another agreement which is a Diversion Agreement which-” the attorney explained, before Noreika probed, “I have concerns about that Diversion Agreement so I’m asking you, if it were not valid, if it were unenforceable, would he plead to the memorandum plea?”
- The attorney avoided answering the question.
- The judge described the plea deal as having “nonstandard terms like the broad immunity and a term that invokes the Court or involves the Court as part of that agreement,” later saying that she was “not convinced that it is actually a plea.”
DISTRICT JUDGE FINDS SCHEME:
- Part of the diversion agreement included a clause that protected Hunter Biden from a range of other potential charges that may be filed by the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office.
- Noreika said that she did not have a say in the diversion agreement under federal rules.
- “You’re saying I don’t even get to accept it, I guess I’m supposed to rubber stamp it,” she said, adding, “You’re telling me that I don’t have any role in it, and you’re leaving provisions of the plea agreement out and putting them into an agreement that you are not asking me to sign off on.”
- Ex-Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) Will Scharf explained the situation to The Daily Mail, saying, “Judge Noreika smelled a rat. She understood that the lawyers were trying to paint her into a corner and hide the ball.”
- He continued, “Instead, she backed DOJ and Hunter’s lawyers into a corner by pulling all the details out into the open and then indicating that she wasn’t going to approve a deal as broad as what she had discovered.”
BACKGROUND:
- American Faith reported that Hunter Biden’s attorney, Chris Clark, also revealed in court that Hunter obtained $664,000 from CEFC China Energy Co. in 2017.
- “During calendar year 2017, Biden earned substantial income, including: just under $1 million from a company he formed with the CEO of a Chinese business conglomerate [BHR Partners]; $666,666 from his domestic business interests; approximately $664,000 from a Chinese infrastructure investment company [CEFC],” Clark said.
- President Joe Biden previously denied that his son had ever received money from Chinese organizations.
