Legal pundits have voiced significant criticism following a Delaware judge’s refusal to sanction a plea agreement between Hunter Biden and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
This plea deal, labelled as a “sweetheart” arrangement by many, unraveled during questioning by Judge Maryellen Noreika and was seen to favor Biden more than initially understood.
Hunter Biden, son of President Biden, entered a not-guilty plea on Wednesday.
This followed an extraordinary action by Judge Noreika who declined to accept the plea deal offered by the DOJ and Biden’s lawyers due to its broad terms of immunity, encompassing potential future charges.
The original agreement proposed that Biden pleads guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and accepts probation for one felony gun charge.
Attorney Julianne Murray, who represents The Heritage Foundation and was present during the court hearing, shared her observations with the Daily Caller News Foundation.
She applauded the judge for discerning “stuff that was not being said out loud.”
Murray expressed her view that “everybody just wanted this to just go away,” but this case will continue to garner attention.
Although it’s normal for plea agreements to grant immunity for actions directly associated with the offense, Murray indicated that the offer extended to Hunter Biden was “not limited in scope.”
It included immunity for “all of the allegations of conduct that are still being investigated.”
Verbal amendments later aimed to limit the scope to drug, gun, and tax-related issues from 2014 to 2019.
The future of the deal remains unclear.
Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, expressed concerns about potential political backlash if the details revealed in court were officially documented, the Daily Caller notes.
He was of the opinion that the Biden Justice Department’s “sweetheart deal with Hunter Biden” faltered under the judge’s basic questioning.
He went further to suggest that the day was supposed to end all criminal charges involving the Biden family.
Davis shared his belief that the plea agreement could not include these details due to the resultant political backlash.
He alleged that the Biden DOJ was continuing to feign an investigation into Biden-related crimes while simultaneously protecting the Biden family and rebuffing congressional inquiries with claims of an ongoing investigation.
Renowned attorney Sol Wisenberg decried the confusion over the plea deal terms, labeling it a “joke” in a tweet, according to the Daily Caller.
In his opinion, there should be no room for disagreements on the agreement’s key terms.
Wisenberg suggested two possibilities for this mix-up, “astounding incompetence or corruption on DOJ’s part.”
He expressed his belief that it is the latter.
He also highlighted the disgraceful aspects of the proposed deal, which granted Hunter Biden lenient terms on serious tax and felony gun charges, along with complete immunity on all other charges.
He added that this was without Hunter having to cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation.
Former federal prosecutor and Missouri Attorney General candidate, Will Scharf, deemed it a scandal for the Biden DOJ to agree to such terms.
He criticized the fact that Hunter Biden might evade serious criminal charges with minimal repercussions.
Bill Shipley, a lawyer and former federal prosecutor, opined on the court hearing’s outcome on Twitter.
He suggested two scenarios: an unwritten agreement that Hunter would face no further charges or an “excuse” for stalling.
Shipley suggested that the proceedings were a “performance art” in light of revelations about the Biden family’s foreign revenue streams.
