WILMINGTON, Del.—President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden on July 26 appeared in Wilmington for a plea hearing, but the hearing ended with no outcome due to disagreements between attorneys and the presiding judge.
Mr. Hunter Biden appeared at the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building to have a judge hear a plea agreement involving three counts: two misdemeanor charges for willful failure to file tax and a felony firearm charge that was expected to be diverted through a pretrial agreement that became a flashpoint of controversy in a confused hearing.
Under the proposed pretrial diversion agreement—a preliminary agreement by Mr. Biden’s attorneys and prosecutor U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David Weiss—Mr. Biden agreed to plead guilty to the tax charges in exchange for immunity from other potential tax, gun, and drug crimes that he may have committed during the period from 2014 to 2019.
Judge Imposes Pretrial Release Conditions
After opening the hearing, Judge Noreika said that Mr. Biden would be eligible for pretrial release to avoid going to jail ahead of his trial and sentencing only if he cooperated with a number of conditions.First, the judge told Mr. Biden he would need to seek employment, a common judicial order for those facing criminal accusations.
Mr. Biden will also be required to remain under supervision by a probation officer, who may request a drug test from the first son at any time. Judge Noreika added that this included marijuana which, despite some state-level decriminalizations, remains illegal at the federal level.
Failure of a drug test would result in Mr. Biden’s arrest pending his court date.
Mr. Biden will also be required to inform the probation office of any international travel plans.
Additionally, he will not be allowed to possess a firearm.
Near the start of the nearly three hour proceeding, Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors announced their intention to seek probation as part of possible penalties facing Mr. Biden—which would be a light ruling considering the sentences Mr. Biden could face.
Because he knowingly lied on a firearm application about his addiction to a federally-scheduled substance, a felony offense, Mr. Biden could face up to 10 years in prison if given the full sentence.
His misdemeanor violations of tax law carry an additional 12 month maximum sentence, as well as a fine of up to $100,000 or two times the financial gain from the violation, whichever is higher.
Pretrial Diversion Agreement ‘Broad,’ ‘Nonstandard’: Judge
The crux of the hearing centered around the judge’s interpretation of an effort by prosecutors to limit her role in the case.Rule 11, which relates to the judge’s role in plea agreements, delineates certain situations during which the judge may choose to reject a plea deal, and others where the plea deal must be accepted.
Prosecutors and Mr. Biden’s defense attorneys alike argued that the plea agreement fell under rule 11 (c)(1)(b), which would limit the judge’s capacity for denying the deal and effectively force her to “rubber stamp” a deal that they had made without her consent.
“What if … I don’t do what you all have decided I’m gonna do?” Judge Noreika asked.
They argued that the deal is a “bilateral” agreement that would serve the interests of both sides.
But Judge Noreika wasn’t convinced—she suggested that the agreement may fall under rule 11 (c)(1)(a), under which she would have broader authority to accept or reject the agreement based on her analysis of the totality of circumstances and the seriousness of the crime or crimes.
She accused lawyers on both sides of trying to “cut out” her role in adjudicating the plea deal through legal tricks, and of “taking out” things from the pretrial diversion agreement that would usually be included, like a judge’s signature.
When Judge Noreika asked the prosecutor for specific precedent of such a move, they were unable to provide it.
Under the pretrial diversion agreement put forward by the government, the DOJ would potentially be unable to pursue any charges related to tax, drug, or firearm crimes allegedly committed by Mr. Biden between 2014 and 2019—far broader than the relatively limited scope the deal initially presented to the public, whereby the pretrial diversion would only relate to Mr. Biden’s firearm charge.
Judge Noreika expressed concerns that the “broad” nature of the agreement could limit the government’s options to pursue future cases with new evidence, including potential violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act by Mr. Biden.
Thus, Judge Noreika told lawyers, “I don’t understand the scope of [the plea deal].”
Despite efforts by both sides to convince the judge to change course and expedite the process, Judge Noreika remained unconvinced, and ultimately determined that she would need more time to review materials before deciding which federal rule the matter fell under.
‘Not Guilty’ Plea
Though he came to court prepared to enter a guilty plea under the pretrial diversion program worked out by prosecutors, Mr. Biden was ultimately required to enter a plea of not guilty as he awaits the judge’s decision on which federal rule the matter falls under.Earlier in the hearing, amid confusion over whether the judge would permit the deal, Mr. Biden had said that he was prepared to plead guilty to the charges even if there were a problem discovered later with the pretrial diversion arrangement.
But after Judge Noreika informed him that she was not prepared to make a decision on the agreement, Mr. Biden entered a plea of not guilty on all counts.
Following the plea, he was taken to another portion of the courthouse for processing ahead of his pretrial release on the conditions laid out by the judge.
DOJ Attorney Evades Speaking on ‘Ongoing’ Investigation
After U.S. Attorney David Weiss announced the relatively minor charges for which he had decided to prosecute Mr. Biden, Republicans were outraged, calling the plea agreement a “sweetheart deal” and a “slap on the wrist.”Mr. Weiss headed off these concerns in a letter announcing the decision by saying that the investigation into the matter was “ongoing.”
During the hearing, an attorney for the government acknowledged that there is indeed an ongoing investigation into the matter.
Judge Noreika responded, “Then why are we doing it piecemeal?”
The attorney replied that he is “not at liberty to say.”
Two whistleblowers, IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, have testified under penalty of perjury to Congress that, after President Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee for the 2020 presidential election, the DOJ refused to take common and necessary steps to investigate Mr. Hunter Biden.
One DOJ official allegedly cited “optics” as the reason for failing to follow standard procedure in Mr. Biden’s case.
At the same time, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are investigating allegations that Mr. Biden peddled his father’s influence in order to rake in millions from foreign nationals.
Hunter Biden Acknowledges Drug Problems
Mr. Biden also acknowledged his past struggles with drug addiction during the trial.During preliminary questioning to assess his competence to stand for the hearing, Judge Noreika asked Mr. Biden if he had attended treatment for his well-publicized addiction issues in the past.
Mr. Biden responded that he has attended treatment programs six times over the past 20 years, with his first in-patient rehabilitation program coming in 2003.
Mr. Biden reported that this involved treatment for alcoholism, and that he developed drug-related issues later. According to an exhibit presented at the trial, these issues began following the death of his brother Beau Biden in 2015.
Mr. Biden said during comments to the judge that the addiction destroyed his personal and business relationships.
He told the judge that his last in-patient treatment was in fall 2018, but that he has attended group programs in the time since.
Judge Rejects GOP Request to Demand Different Deal
Near the beginning of the hearing, Judge Noreika rejected a filing from the House Ways and Means Committee asking for the plea agreement to be rejected on the basis of the IRS whistleblower claims.The materials submitted by Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) related to the whistleblower allegations regarding the investigation into Mr. Biden. He argued in an amicus brief to supplement the hearing that Mr. Biden benefitted during his investigation from “political interference which calls into question the propriety of the investigation.”
The filed materials included testimony from Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler, who spoke in detail about the ways that Mr. Biden allegedly received protection from the Biden administration’s IRS and DOJ.
Mr. Shapley said in his testimony, “After former Vice President Joe Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee for President in early April 2020, career DOJ officials dragged their feet on the IRS taking these investigative steps.”
In one case, the IRS investigators said they were able to authenticate a WhatsApp message in which Mr. Hunter Biden demanded payment from Chinese officials. In the text, the younger Mr. Biden highlighted that his father was in the room with him by way of a threat.
Additionally, Mr. Biden’s attorneys were allegedly given “crucial information” about the investigation.
In such an instance, Mr. Biden’s attorneys were made aware that the IRS knew about documents stored in a Northern Virginia storage unit, giving the attorneys time to remove any documents that could be used in the case against Mr. Biden, the whistleblowers said.
In another case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf allegedly refused to authorize a search warrant for a guest house owned by the president and used by Mr. Hunter Biden. Ms. Wolf allegedly told investigators “there is no way” such a search warrant would be approved due to the proximity of the election at the time, citing “optics” as the primary consideration.
Due to arrangements made with the judge, Mr. Biden will remain out of custody until his hearing, which is planned for sometime in late August or September.
