https://sputnikglobe.com/20230728/is-bidens-doj-not-indicting-hunter-to-let-statute-of-limitations-expire-1112230020.html
Is Biden's DoJ Not Indicting Hunter to Let Statute of Limitations Expire?
Is Biden's DoJ Not Indicting Hunter to Let Statute of Limitations Expire?
Sputnik International
After Hunter Biden's plea agreement collapsed, some people ask whether the younger Biden will be put on trial soon. Not so fast, say US legal scholars.
2023-07-28T20:02+0000
2023-07-28T20:02+0000
2023-09-20T14:06+0000
us
hunter biden
joe biden
foreign agents registration act (fara)
justice department
internal revenue service (irs)
plea deal
tax
tax evasion
analysis
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e6/08/1c/1100091060_0:0:3071:1728_1920x0_80_0_0_7c3ed30727949556f21370526cb1d830.jpg
Hunter Biden's plea hearing went off the rails on Wednesday, with the federal judge throwing the "unusual" deal into question and delaying the case.US legal observers have already gone into detail over the much-discussed deal which appeared to be aimed at automatically white-washing the first son's other potential felonies by providing him with a bullet-proof immunity.It seems mind-boggling why the Biden legal team and prosecutors failed to agree on the limits of the immunity clause when it turned out that the Justice Department is in the middle of its probe, US observers say.US District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked: "Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?" Prosecutor Leo Wise responded: "Yes." However, defense lawyer Chris Clark immediately stated he did not agree with that, thus bringing the deal to naught.This weird episode happened because the Hunter Biden case is not a legal case but a "sham," as per Andrew C. McCarthy, a US lawyer and former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.The lawyer suspects the DoJ had earlier endorsed the younger Biden legal team's provisions and voiced its protestations solely for face-saving purposes as both sides seemed to be caught red-handed by Noreika.Per McCarthy, when one asks whether Hunter will be put on trial after his plea deal collapsed, one should take a look at the first son's indictment. One would be surprised to know that the DoJ has never filed an indictment in Hunter's case, noting that none of his alleged crimes have ever been described in detail by US prosecutors. Why? The lawyer believes that it's because it would be "politically devastating for the president, who is implicated in his son’s conduct."In addition, if prosecutors fully describe the charges which seem to be supported by a great deal of evidence, it would become politically impossible to settle the case on two trivial tax misdemeanors, per McCarthy.The lawyer assumed the idea behind the plea deal was to "write a set of highly unusual, slippery agreements" that would provide the Hunter with a "blanket" immunity without detailing his alleged crimes; and to allow the DoJ to avoid answering damning questions on the matter under the pretext of "still ongoing investigation." The key to this apparent charade was to make a federal judge rubber-stamp the plea agreement without asking questions, according to the lawyer.However, the sides not only appeared to underestimate Noreika but fell into their own trap: typically, plea agreements are so detailed that they do not require additional questions from the judge to clarify the matter, per the legal scholar. In contrast, the younger Biden's plea deal looked ambiguous and constitutionally objectionable, which eventually prompted the judge to ask questions and subsequently delay the decision. The deal collapsed. "But collapsed into . . . what? Remember, there is no indictment," McCarthy highlighted.Hunter's offenses have a statute of limitations, a length of time a civil or criminal case can be brought to legal proceedings. Essentially, it means the clock is ticking on Biden's case. "An indictment stops the clock," the lawyer explained. If there is no indictment, statute of limitations on Hunter's offenses will lapse. Previously, two Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers explained the DoJ was doing just that: it allowed Hunter's tax cases to expire. And who cares about the younger Biden, given that the DoJ is going to bring Donald Trump, Joe Biden's presidential rival, into focus.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230727/will-collapse-of-hunter-biden-plea-deal-end-up-in-joes-impeachment-1112196578.html
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230727/hunter-biden-faces-new-charges-after-plea-bargain-collapse-1112189976.html
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230727/white-house-biden-will-not-pardon-his-son-hunter-over-tax-firearms-charges-1112199081.html
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
2023
News
en_EN
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
hunter biden tax evasion, hunter biden tax crimes, hunter biden tax fraud, hunter biden fara violation, hunter biden tax affairs, hunter biden indictment, bidens pay-to-play, bidens influence peddling
hunter biden tax evasion, hunter biden tax crimes, hunter biden tax fraud, hunter biden fara violation, hunter biden tax affairs, hunter biden indictment, bidens pay-to-play, bidens influence peddling
Is Biden's DoJ Not Indicting Hunter to Let Statute of Limitations Expire?
20:02 GMT 28.07.2023 (Updated: 14:06 GMT 20.09.2023) After Hunter Biden's plea agreement collapsed, some people asked whether the younger Biden would be put on trial soon. Not so fast, say US legal scholars.
Hunter Biden's plea hearing went off the rails on Wednesday, with the federal judge throwing the "unusual" deal into question and delaying the case.
US legal observers have already gone into detail over the much-discussed deal which appeared to be aimed at automatically white-washing the first son's other potential felonies by providing him with a bullet-proof immunity.
It seems mind-boggling why the Biden legal team and prosecutors failed to agree on the limits of the immunity clause when it turned out that the Justice Department is in the middle of its probe, US observers say.
US District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked: "Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?" Prosecutor Leo Wise responded: "Yes." However, defense lawyer Chris Clark immediately stated he did not agree with that, thus bringing the deal to naught.
This weird episode happened because the Hunter Biden case is not a legal case but a "sham," as per Andrew C. McCarthy, a US lawyer and former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
"It could not be more obvious that, if the government were truly conducting a continuing investigation, prosecutors would never in a million years give one of the main subjects of that investigation a plea to minor tax charges — with the promise of a recommendation of no imprisonment — in the middle of that investigation," McCarthy wrote in his op-ed.
The lawyer suspects the DoJ had earlier endorsed the younger Biden legal team's provisions and voiced its protestations solely for
face-saving purposes as both sides seemed to be caught red-handed by Noreika.
Per McCarthy, when one asks whether Hunter will be put on trial after his plea deal collapsed, one should take a look at the first son's indictment. One would be surprised to know that the DoJ has never filed an indictment in Hunter's case, noting that none of his alleged crimes have ever been described in detail by US prosecutors. Why? The lawyer believes that it's because it would be "politically devastating for the president, who is implicated in his son’s conduct."
In addition, if prosecutors fully describe the charges which seem to be supported by a great deal of evidence, it would become politically impossible to settle the case on two trivial tax misdemeanors, per McCarthy.
The lawyer assumed the idea behind the plea deal was to "write a set of highly unusual, slippery agreements" that would provide the Hunter with a "blanket" immunity without detailing his alleged crimes; and to allow the DoJ to avoid answering damning questions on the matter under the pretext of "still ongoing investigation." The key to this apparent charade was to make a federal judge rubber-stamp the plea agreement without asking questions, according to the lawyer.
However, the sides not only appeared to underestimate Noreika but fell into their own trap: typically, plea agreements are so detailed that they do not require additional questions from the judge to clarify the matter, per the legal scholar. In contrast, the younger Biden's plea deal looked ambiguous and constitutionally objectionable, which eventually prompted the judge to ask questions and subsequently delay the decision. The deal collapsed. "But collapsed into . . . what? Remember, there is no indictment," McCarthy highlighted.
Hunter's offenses have a statute of limitations, a length of time a civil or criminal case can be brought to legal proceedings. Essentially, it means the clock is ticking on Biden's case.
"An indictment stops the clock," the lawyer explained. If there is no indictment, statute of limitations on Hunter's offenses will lapse. Previously, two Internal Revenue Service
whistleblowers explained the DoJ was doing just that: it allowed Hunter's tax cases to expire. And who cares about the younger Biden, given that the DoJ is going to bring
Donald Trump, Joe Biden's presidential rival, into focus.
