The continuing influx of evidence of President Joe Biden’s possible involvement in Hunter Biden’s financial schemes has raised the issue of whether the U.S. Department of Justice will follow up on this intel, but what happened at Hunter Biden’s abortive plea bargain hearing last week should end all debate over whether a special counsel is needed.
Presiding Judge Maryellen Noreika, who refused to approve the deal as written, noted that several provisions in the proposed agreement were highly unusual and considerably different from what she was used to seeing in plea agreements – “atypical provisions” was how she put it. For us, there were a couple of sweetheart provisions that stood out:
While it was not unusual, in principle, that the DOJ would allow Hunter Biden to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax crimes to satisfy possible felony claims, nor was it unheard of that he should be allowed to satisfy felony violations of federal gun laws by enrolling in a pre-trial diversion plan for non-violent offenders, both deals suggested special consideration for the President’s son. What drove the point home, however, was the passage wherein the “government agrees not to criminally prosecute Hunter Biden … for any federal crimes” tied to the conduct described in the plea agreement.
When Judge Norieka asked the DOJ and Hunter Biden attorneys whether Biden could still face prosecution for failing to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) – think illegal lobbying U.S. officials on behalf of foreign interests – a dispute arose. The government attorneys said yes, reiterating their prior public statements that the investigation of Hunter Biden “was ongoing.” Biden’s lawyer, however, insisted that the plea agreement meant that anything and everything between Hunter Biden and the government was settled.
Think about it: When pleading guilty to a lesser offense in an ordinary case, the accused will still be punished for the same type of crime, albeit at a lower level of seriousness. The quid pro quo for the government is that they can avoid the trouble and expense of an unnecessary trial.
From what consideration, however, did the immunity agreement arise here? What downward plea did it represent? What was the quid pro quo for the government? Hadn’t Hunter Biden recorded himself on his notorious laptop admitting to lobbying on behalf of foreign entities while unregistered under FARA?
Still, there was a method to the madness. On the one hand, if the investigations of Hunter Biden are ongoing, the DOJ would ordinarily be entitled to refuse to turn over any investigative material to the Congress, thereby protecting the president from prying Congressional eyes. Who says that the investigations have to ever result in prosecutions anyway? Certainly not before the 2024 presidential elections.
On the other hand, of course, the DOJ’s agreement to include amorphous immunity language gave Hunter Biden’s lawyers a wholly unnecessary gift with which to try to persuade a judge that the words did cover all of his prior activities, even in the face of protestations by DOJ lawyers. Again, the president would be insulated.
As such, we think the show of anger by Biden’s lawyer highly instructive. He indignantly told the DOJ lawyer to rip up the agreement – but what leverage did he have? What had his side given to the government to secure any immunity pledge?
There were too many oddities in the agreements, to say nothing of the years of investigations and negotiations that only resulted in guilty pleas to two misdemeanors and commitments to stay drug-free for two years and never again own firearms.
If we are to believe the polls, public confidence in the FBI and the DOJ is at an all-time low based, largely on perception of a two-tiered justice system. Restoring the credibility of those two vital agencies should be a priority of all Americans. The appointment of an independent Special Counsel would be a good place to start.
