Judge Rejects Hunter Biden’s Bid to Dismiss Tax Charges – On Monday, a federal judge in California delivered a verdict unfavorable to Hunter Biden, dismissing eight motions put forth by the president’s son seeking to dismiss the criminal tax charges against him.
Judge Mark Scarsi dismissed a range of attempts by Hunter Biden to invalidate the charges, including assertions that the appointment of lead prosecutor, special counsel David Weiss, was improper and that the charges were driven by vindictiveness and external pressure from Republicans.
Scarsi’s decision implies that Biden is poised to face trial commencing on June 20, in line with the tentative start date previously established by the judge. Additionally, Biden confronts criminal charges in Delaware related to an alleged firearm purchase. Judge Maryellen Noreika, overseeing the Delaware case, has yet to make a ruling on a set of motions similar to those dismissed by Scarsi on Monday.
People Also Read: Ramaswamy Addresses Israel Policy Criticism at Jewish Forum in Las Vegas
Should Noreika align with Scarsi’s perspective, Biden’s Delaware trial could commence on June 3, preceding the proceedings in California. On December 7, 2023, prosecutors leveled accusations against Biden for willfully neglecting to fulfill tax obligations, including timely tax filings, as well as allegations of tax evasion and submission of fraudulent tax documents.
Biden’s legal team has asserted that he eventually settled the taxes with penalties and interest, albeit belatedly, attributing delays to his struggles with severe drug addiction during that period. Last summer, Biden and prosecutors came close to settling the criminal investigation through negotiations, crafting a two-part agreement.
Under this arrangement, the president’s son would admit guilt to tax misdemeanors and undertake measures aimed at dismissing a firearm charge. The agreement also entailed an assurance from the Justice Department that Biden would be spared from facing criminal charges pertaining to purported financial offenses and a firearm purchase, contingent upon his compliance with the terms.
Both Weiss and Biden signed the agreement before a hearing on the matter. However, following the hearing, the agreement began to unravel as Judge Noreika from Delaware raised concerns about its extent and enforceability. Biden’s legal team contended that the agreement held legal weight, highlighting Weiss’s endorsement.
People Also Read: Trump Raises Concerns About Possible US Ban on TikTok
However, prosecutors pointed out that the agreement also required the probation officer’s signature, which was absent. Moreover, one Justice Department representative informed Scarsi that the officer explicitly declined to sign the document before the hearing. Scarsi, appointed to the bench by then-President Donald Trump, aligned with the prosecutors, rejecting Biden’s motion following an elaborate examination of contract law.
Additionally, Scarsi delivered pointed criticism regarding allegations from Biden’s camp regarding “selective and vindictive prosecution.” Biden’s lawyers asserted that political pressure from Trump’s allies, including Congress, prompted the Justice Department to bring charges. However, Scarsi contended that this motion warranted immediate dismissal as it relied solely on news articles, lacking substantive evidence.
Scarsi further noted that the news reports cited by Biden’s lawyers failed to substantiate claims that prosecutors decided to prosecute President Joe Biden’s son due to political pressure. “Defendant provides no facts indicating that the Government undertook charging decisions in any respect because of public statements by politicians, let alone based on Defendant’s familial and political affiliations,” he wrote.
Scarsi acknowledged that House Republicans had taken credit for the Biden prosecution, as Biden’s lawyers had emphasized. “But politicians take credit for many things over which they have no power and have made no impact,” he added. Biden’s legal team presented a parallel argument for dismissing the indictment, relying on congressional testimony given by two IRS agents involved in the Biden investigation before being withdrawn from it.
People Also Read: Hunter Biden Asks Los Angeles Judge to Toss out $1.4m Tax Evasion Case
Biden alleged that these individuals violated his privacy rights, while the agents themselves stated that Biden’s indictment represented “complete vindication.” However, Scarsi remarked that the agents’ remarks did not establish that the indictment stemmed from disclosures regarding the president’s son. “Publicly taking credit for a prosecution hardly proves the boaster’s conduct had any effect on the presumably independent prosecutor,” he wrote.
In a statement, Biden’s lead lawyer suggested they may appeal Scarsi’s rulings. “We strongly disagree with the Court’s decision and will continue to vigorously pursue Mr. Biden’s challenges to the abnormal way the Special Counsel handled this investigation and charged this case,” said defense attorney Abbe Lowell.
