It has been reported that Hunter Biden’s legal team used aggressive tactics when dealing with the Department of Justice. They employed a strategy that could potentially use President Joe Biden’s testimony in any future criminal trial involving Hunter Biden, his son. This strategy was put forth as a means of pressuring the DOJ to consider a plea agreement to settle the alleged crimes attributed to Hunter.
Hunter Biden’s attorney, Chris Clark, articulated that President Biden could be a pertinent witness for the defense in a criminal trial. In a comprehensive 32-page letter sent last fall, Clark highlighted the implications of involving the President as a witness and criticized the “illegal” leak concerning the evidence against Hunter.
In addition to over 300 pages of previously undisclosed emails and correspondences exchanged between Hunter Biden’s legal representatives and prosecutors, these documents shed light on the intricate negotiations that nearly culminated in a comprehensive plea agreement. This agreement would have addressed Hunter Biden’s primary legal issues, notably his firearm purchase and the failure to pay taxes over multiple years. Furthermore, it could have potentially safeguarded him from future prosecution by a Justice Department under Republican control.
The provided documents illustrate how the intended deal ultimately collapsed following criticism from Republicans and probing questions from a judge. The termination of the agreement renewed the prospect of Hunter Biden facing trial, which coincides with his father’s pursuit of reelection in 2024.
Chris Clark contended that summoning Joe Biden to the witness stand would incite political turmoil and constitutional upheaval by placing the President in opposition to his own Department of Justice. In a letter shared with Politico alongside other documents, it was stated that this particular case did not warrant the spectacle of a sitting President testifying in a criminal trial, nor did it justify the potential constitutional crisis that might result.
Background context reveals that in the spring of 2022, Hunter Biden’s legal representatives adopted an aggressive approach, referencing a PowerPoint presentation invoking former President Trump’s shadow. The objective was to underline how Trump’s continuous criticism of Hunter could cast any charges against him due to political pressure, consequently compromising the integrity of the Justice Department.
While initial concerns centered around potential charges of influence peddling or money laundering, the focal point of the case revolved around delayed tax payments spanning from 2014 to 2019. Hunter’s attorneys contended that pursuing tax-related charges against him would be perceived as yielding to Trump’s demand for an investigation.
Advancing later in 2022, it was revealed that Hunter could potentially face federal gun-related charges linked to his period of heavy addiction to crack cocaine in 2018. As matters escalated, Hunter’s legal team sought meetings with high-ranking officials within the DOJ. These interactions were not mere speculative efforts but calculated maneuvers to corner the Department into a decisive position.
The Department had to choose between enduring a reputation hit for being “politically influenced” or facing accusations of granting special treatment to the President’s son.
By spring 2023, it appeared that the DOJ was seeking an exit strategy and was receptive to reaching an agreement that would preserve the reputation of all parties involved, particularly the Department itself. This proposed agreement did not necessitate an admission of guilt from Hunter, but it did outline various stipulations.
From fall 2022 to spring 2023, Chris Clark attempted to schedule meetings with important individuals in the Justice Department. However, his attempts were largely unsuccessful. Despite sending numerous emails requesting meetings with prominent officials, including the heads of various divisions and the Deputy Attorney General, these efforts yielded limited results. A breakthrough occurred after Clark’s team contacted Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, prompting a meeting with him and another official.
During these negotiations, Hunter’s attorneys argued that their client was treated too harshly due to political considerations. At the same time, an IRS supervisor prepared to testify that Hunter was receiving preferential treatment. Eventually, a potential agreement emerged in May. Hunter would admit to late tax filings in 2017 and 2018, acknowledge possessing a firearm while using drugs, commit to repaying taxes, and relinquish his right to own a gun. Adhering to these terms until January 2025 would ensure that the DOJ refrained from prosecuting him for the investigated matters.
The prospective deal contained language that the United States would not criminally prosecute Hunter for any federal crimes encompassed by the specified documents. This clause was perceived as a measure to shield Hunter from potential legal action under a future administration, particularly if a Republican-led it. However, following a judge’s inquiries during a hearing, the agreement fell apart, leading to the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the case’s transition to trial.
In the aftermath, the judge granted a motion to withdraw tax charges and approved Hunter’s attorney Chris Clark’s request to step down from the legal team due to the possibility of being called as a witness in a potential trial. The pivotal question now centers on whether Joe Biden might become a witness in this unfolding legal scenario.