July 26 Hearing on Hunter Biden Plea Deal to Test GOP and Trump; Will They Back Up Their Claims of Wrongdoing With Court Submissions?
Hunter Biden Plea Deal Will Be A Major Test
WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 19, 2023) – The July 26th court hearing on Hunter Biden’s so-called “sweetheart” plea deal will provide a major test of the sincerity and veracity of some GOP members of Congress, and of former president Donald Trump, as well as the strength of the evidence of serious wrongdoing by the President’s son and others, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whose formal complaint triggered the criminal investigation of Donald Trump in Georgia.
Trump and other Republicans who claim to have compelling evidence – including the sworn testimony of at least two whistleblowers – that Hunter engaged in criminal conduct far more serious than that to which he will be allowed to plead, and that there was political bias and wrongdoing involved in agreeing to the no-jail-time plea deal itself, surely know that they can bring such evidence in opposition to the judge’s approval of the plea deal to her attention.
This is especially true, and important, because much of this information is now in the Congressional Record where the judge can take judicial notice of it, says Banzhaf, who filed information before then-chief-judge John Sirica which helped lead to the appointment of special prosecutors to investigate then-president Richard Nixon.
It is also especially important because IRS supervisory agent Gary Shapley claimed that the IRS probe he was part of was prevented from taking steps “that could have led us to President Biden.”
For example, IRS investigators (including Shapley) have reported that Delaware US Attorney David Weiss told several law-enforcement officials connected to the Hunter Biden investigation that he was not the ultimate decision-maker regarding whether Biden would be charged, and that he was being thwarted by other Biden-appointed US attorneys.
It is also claimed that the Justice Department refused Weiss’s request that he be appointed as a special counsel to help insure a complete an unbiased investigation, notes Banzhaf.
Concerns About The Investigation
As House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith explained in greater detail in a recent letter:
“The testimony of the two whistleblowers raises serious concerns about the handling of this investigation and prosecution, and multiple congressional inquiries into the whistleblowers’ allegations are ongoing. The whistleblowers alleged that prosecutors and Department of Justice officials engaged in unjustified delays and political interference that resulted, in part, in the statute of limitations expiring for tax years 2014 and 2015.
According to the whistleblowers, the IRS recommended criminal charges be sought for tax years 2014 through 2019, including multiple felony counts. These represent only some of the allegations presented to the Committee by the whistleblowers, as they also provided numerous examples of unprecedented and unusual interference, delays, and roadblocks beyond what is described above, which appear to have hindered the investigation.” [emphasis added]
Indeed, Smith has asked the Justice Department to insert into the record what is claimed to be overwhelming evidence of this wrongdoing, which is now a matter of public record, in order to avoid a serious miscarriage of justice, and perhaps even a coverup of criminal interference with an ongoing criminal investigation:
“Given the abruptness of the plea agreement announcement shortly after it became public that whistleblowers made disclosures to Congress, the seriousness of the whistleblower allegations, and the fact that multiple congressional investigations into the matter are ongoing, we ask that you file this letter and the attached information in the docket of the above referenced matter and confirm with the Committee that you have done so as soon as possible, but no later than 5pm on Tuesday, July 18, 2023.
Placing the attached materials into the record is critical because the testimony provided by the two IRS whistleblowers brings new and compelling facts to light, and because it is essential for the Judge in this matter to have relevant information before her when evaluating the plea agreement.” [emphasis added]
If I, as a private citizen, can bring important information to the attention of a federal judge (then chief judge) overseeing the criminal investigation of the Watergate burglars, the Chairman of a House committee should be able to do no less regarding a minor no-jail plea bargain of an individual who his committee has been – and is still in the process of – investigating regarding far more serious criminal charges, argues Banzhaf.
Similarly, anything presented by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy – who played a video for his Republican House colleagues about the evidence against both Joe and Hunter Biden, and who is second in the line of presidential succession (after only the vice president) – to Judge Maryellen Noreika, certainly could not be ignored by her, the law professor suggests.
Banzhaf notes that there are many situations where judges have refused to accept a negotiated plea agreement: e.g., “if judges believe the agreements do not adequately address the nature of the crimes, the rights of victims, or the interests of the public'” the plea agreement “falls short given the backdrop of the parties’ motivation, [the defendant’s] trusted employment position, and the threats to national and global security . . . tat [the parties’] actions caused;” because the judge was inclined to give the defendant a longer sentence; “[i]t was not in the best interest of the community, or the country, to accept the[] plea agreements;” etc.
Perhaps most tellingly, a judge once rejected a negotiated plea deal simply because “[i]t is contrary to justice. Justice in this society cannot be seen as being able to buy oneself out of a felony conviction.”
“If Chairman Jason Smith, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, or even former president Donald Trump were to formally bring all of this information to the attention of Judge Noreika, it is quite possible if not likely that she would reject the “slap-on-the-wrist” plea deal being offered by his father’s Justice Department in view of the very serious criminal wrongdoings it appears Hunter has committed, says Banzhaf.
At the very least, it is hard to see how with such evidence before her the judge could avoid at least granting a brief delay to permit ongoing formal investigations by congressional committees – where witnesses would be under oath and subject to perjury – to continue their work which even so far strongly suggests that the plea deal was improperly influenced by political pressure, and is hardly in the public interest.
A refusal by Republicans to take this simple step would logically lead many to question the sincerity of their concerns about the deal, and/or the strength of the evidence they keep claiming to have, argues the activist law professor.
