by Jonathan Turley at Jonathan Turley
The second indictment of Hunter Biden brought nine new criminal charges and a host of problems for both him and his father. The indictment shatters past claims and denials related to the massive influence peddling operation by the Bidens. However, it is also a case study of the perils of legal gluttony.
Five months ago, exasperated Biden defense counsel Chris Clark snapped at federal prosecutors to “just rip it up” after a plea bargain hit a snag in a hearing before Judge Maryellen Noreika. They did and, for the first time, Hunter could be facing a real chance for jail time.
The six misdemeanor charges and three felonies carry a potential sentence of 17 years for alleged tax evasion and filing a false return. It could have been worse. The Justice Department inexplicably allowed the statute of limitations to run on the most serious allegations involving payments from years going back to 2013. Those are mentioned in the narrative of the indictment but not charged as separate offenses.
None of this would have happened if Judge Noreika did not ask a very simple question about the plea agreement and a sweeping immunity provision buried in its language. Many judges would have likely flagged through the agreement and given Hunter the sweetest of sweetheart deals.
Noreika noticed that the deal seemed to give Hunter immunity for any crime going forward and asked the prosecutor if he had ever seen any agreement like this one. He honestly answered “no.”
It was later learned that there was a push within…
Continue Reading