First of all, it was a wild day in a federal courtroom in Delaware when Hunter Biden was expected to plead guilty and accept a cushy plea deal over two misdemeanor tax charges.
Due to an open investigation, US District Judge Maryellen Noeika asked about certain details surrounding the plea deal, which after a heated back and forth, ended up killing the deal. Part of the hangup was due to both sides being unable to articulate if there is immunity for other crimes (such as FARA violations), with the DOJ saying an investigation is ongoing.
🚨BREAKING: Hunter Biden’s plea deal just fell apart in court due to investigations that are still on going into potential FARA violations. pic.twitter.com/wn6qoXGMSD
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 26, 2023
That is until after a short 10 minute recess and the deal appeared to be back on.
DEVELOPING: The plea deal between the DOJ and Hunter Biden appears to be back on.
The two sides met during recess and Biden’s team is agreeing to a more limited plea deal that would provide immunity for the drug, gun and tax crimes (from 2014-2019)—but not future prosecution.
— Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) July 26, 2023
However, the judge took issue with the diversion program for the gun charge, which requires her to make a ruling in the event of a breach prior to the DOJ bringing new charges. She argued it may be unconstitutional, would affect Biden’s immunity, and could make the entire deal invalid.
With that the entire deal fell through and Hunter plead not guilty.
On top of that insanity one of Biden’s attorneys could be facing sanctions for allegedly impersonating congressional staff.
According to reports an attorney working for Hunter allegedly misrepresented herself and requested that amicus materials about IRS whistleblowers be removed from the docket.
🚨 Moments ago, Hunter Biden’s attorneys faced sanctions for lying to clerk in his criminal case #ClownShow pic.twitter.com/7MyjLSKpRB
— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarliBonnita) July 25, 2023
The judge’s order stated, “The Court has discussed the matter with the relevant individuals in the Clerk’s Office and has been informed that the caller, Ms. Jessica Bengels, represented that she worked with Mr. Kittila and requested the amicus materials be taken down because they contained sensitive grand jury, taxpayer and social security information.”
“It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the clerk’s office to remove the amicus materials from the docket,” added.
In response to the order Hunter’s team threw their hands up in the air.
“We have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is there was no misrepresentation. We hope this letter and the attached declaration dispels any suggestion that undersigned counsel or our staff would ever intentionally misrepresent or mislead the Court with respect to any matter.”
