Following the collapse of a favorable agreement negotiated by Hunter Biden’s legal team with the Justice Department under President Joe Biden, emerging information reveals a strategy employed by his lawyers to minimize the consequences of his legal issues.
According to a comprehensive report published in Politico on Saturday, the strategy was successful until a federal judge expressed curiosity about the specifics.
HELP US CONTINUE TO BRING YOU THE BEST NEWS, OPINIONS
In a recent Politico report, it was stated that Hunter Biden’s attorney, Chris Clark, has requested to withdraw from the case. Clark had informed Justice Department prosecutors that if a deal could not be reached, President Biden would be summoned to testify in defense of his son.
According to a 32-page letter sent on Halloween, it is now indisputable that President Biden would serve as a factual witness for the defense in any criminal trial. The report highlights two leaks related to the Justice Department’s handling of Hunter Biden, which provide sufficient grounds for summoning the president as a witness.
In October, The Washington Post reported that federal agents claimed to have evidence supporting potential charges against Hunter Biden for alleged tax evasion and providing false information when purchasing a firearm.
Shortly after, another leak emerged, published by the U.K. Daily Mail, a prominent digital presence in the U.S.
A voicemail from October 2018 was reported, in which former Vice President Joe Biden urged his son Hunter to seek assistance for his drug addiction. This is noteworthy as Hunter had previously denied his drug addiction on a federal form when purchasing a firearm.
Clark perceived the leaks as a deliberate effort to exert pressure on the Justice Department in order to compel them to prosecute his client, as reported by Politico.
According to Politico, Biden’s legal team argued that the tax charges would not have been considered if it were not for political pressure exerted by former President Donald Trump.
According to Politico, Clark stated in his letter that federal law enforcement officials were aware of Biden’s gun incident since 2018, illustrating how the perspective inside the Beltway can differ significantly from the outside. He argued that the consideration of charges years later was solely driven by political factors.
Critics of President Biden, such as the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee, along with defense attorneys who have represented individuals facing similar charges, would argue against the aforementioned claim. They contend that Hunter Biden’s alleged offense, which involves providing false information on a federal form to purchase a firearm, is contrary to the stated assertion.
In the letter, Clark threatened to summon Joe Biden as a witness and subtly discouraged Justice Department prosecutors from compelling his testimony, as reported by Politico. Clark argues that neither the prospect of a sitting President testifying at a criminal trial nor the potential for a resulting Constitutional crisis is justified in this particular case.
The Politico report indicates that a significant amount of time passed between Clark’s letter and the eventual agreement reached by both parties.
The potential scenario of a current president being summoned as a witness in his son’s criminal trials undoubtedly concerned the Department of Justice and potentially individuals involved in a Biden re-election campaign.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM WAYNEDUPREE.COM
The plea agreement reached for Hunter Biden was deemed highly favorable and atypical, ultimately lacking legal validity when challenged by Judge Maryellen Noreika. Congressional Republicans and conservative commentators, including former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, have criticized it. From a legal perspective, Hunter’s legal team effectively fulfilled their role and strategically utilized their strongest legal tactic.