Hunter Biden’s lawyers feared Trump would get re-elected and revoke his probation: New details reveal why the plea deal dramatically collapsed over president’s son being shielded from future crimes
- Federal judge called the plea deal ‘not standard’ and put it on hold
- Lawyers negotiated to have her referee disputes if Biden is found in breach
- It could keep Trump from ordering prosecutors to go after rival
The Hunter Biden plea deal that a federal judge blew up in court Wednesday contained a feature that appears designed to impose guardrails against efforts to by a potential Donald Trump administration to overrun it.
Trump has spent years raging against what he calls the ‘Biden crime family’ and poking at Hunter in particular, and has vowed to settle scores should he regain the White House. He now periodically inveighs against former Attorney General Barr, who quit weeks before the end of Trump’s term after pushing back on his claims of election fraud.
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika repeatedly torched parts of the agreement during a three-hour hearing with Hunter Biden and his lawyers in her Wilmington courtroom Tuesday. This included particular a provision she said would put her in the middle of any disputes over a ‘diversion’ agreement that lets Hunter avoid prosecution on a gun charge.
She was particularly incensed that she would be involved down the road, but Hunter’s and government lawyers told her she had no role in approving the terms his plea deal for tax crimes he would plead guilty to.
Among the provisions she railed against was a paragraph on any potential breach of the deal to defer prosecution on a gun charge – and who would decide if Hunter was found to have violated it.
Normally, prosecutors would make the determination. But under the language pushed by Hunter’s team, if the government believes there is a ‘knowing material breach’ of the agreement, it would seek a determination by the U.S. District Judge in Delaware – Noreika.
Hunter Biden’s plea deal came under withering criticism from a federal judge, who resisted being put in the middle as an arbiter of whether he is found in breach of an agreement
They would seek a determination based on a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ and if they get one could prosecute for perjury, obstruction of justice, or other criminal violations.
The judge called the deal ‘not standard’ and said it might be unconstitutional by giving her a role normally fulfilled by prosecutors themselves, who are part of the executive branch.
The judge had federal prosecutor Leo Wise read from the agreement in open court, and Politico obtained the entire document.
‘I don’t want to violate the separation of powers or do anything (un)constitutional,’ the judge said. She also said she had never seen a diversion agreement ‘so broad’ that it encompasses crimes in another case.
Former President Donald Trump has railed against the Biden ‘crime family,’ clashed with his attorneys general, and has attacked special counsels Robert Mueller and Jack Smith
Biden lawyer Chris Clark negotiated an agreement with prosecutors that injects a judge into the mix on deciding whether there has been a breach. It could insulate his client in the event Trump tries to order prosecutors to go after Hunter
‘I thought that Hunter Biden’s attorneys made it quite clear why they wanted the judge involved, which is to have this neutral party in the event that the dept of justice is under a different administration,’ former Southern District of New York Prosecutor Jessica Roth told CNN.
Another former prosecutor, Joyce Vance of the Northern District of Alabama, wrote on substack that Hunter Biden had become Trump’s ‘favorite whipping boy’ and ‘faces ongoing risks of further prosecutions if Trump returns to office,’ and argued that the idea to install a more neutral arbiter has merit.
‘Trump is focused on revenge and retribution, and Hunter Biden seems to be at the center of his focus …Given Trump’s public pronouncements about the ‘Biden crime family,’ there are good reasons for concern if you’re Hunter Biden or his lawyers. So inserting a provision requiring sign off from the court as a guarantee against vindictive future prosecutions, makes sense.’
The judge is a Trump appointee, but was recommended by two Democratic senators. She received praise Tuesday from former Robert Mueller top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann for her conduct in the courtroom, who called her work ‘exceptional.’
