Special Counsel David Weiss has filed a blistering opposition to the motion to dismiss by Hunter Biden in California that cites his own book and conflicting statements as creating “nothing more than a house of cards.” The filing (below) shows how Hunter’s claims (repeated by many in the media) collapse under even cursory review in court.
Weiss’s filing bulldozes through arguments of selective prosecution and political influence in the case. He specifically notes that Biden repeatedly makes statements without any proof or support in his filings.
The filing begins by outright accusing Hunter Biden and his counsel of lying to the court about what occurred after the earlier plea agreement fell apart in court after the judge in Delaware asked about a sweeping immunity clause in paragraph 14. Notably, Weiss said that it was Hunter Biden’s legal team that inexplicably shut down negotiations by playing hardball in seeking to preserve the original agreement:
“The government proposed changes to the agreements that addressed only the issues identified during the hearing. Exh. 3. The defendant rejected these counterproposals on August 7, 2023. Id. Instead, the defendant began insisting that the proposed Diversion Agreement had bound both parties, even though it had not been approved by the Chief U.S. Probation Officer, a condition precedent to formation that would have brought it into effect. Moreover, by taking this position, he chose to shut down any further negotiations that could address the issues raised at the hearing.”
It then accuses Biden and his counsel as outright lying to the court:
“In his motion, in multiple places, the defendant falsely states that DOJ ‘inexplicably demanded Mr. Biden plead guilty to felonies with jail time.’ He cites nothing in support of his false claims, which is a consistent theme across his motions. The government attaches as Exhibit 3 a redacted letter from the defendant’s counsel which confirms the defendant understood that the government had proposed changes to only those paragraphs that were at issue during the hearing, not paragraphs regarding the charges the defendant must plead to or any “jail time” the defendant must serve. As shown in Exhibit 3, the government proposed changes to Paragraphs 14, 15 and 17 of the Diversion Agreement, and Paragraph 5(b) of the Plea Agreement. The government proposed no changes to Paragraph 1 of the Plea Agreement, which required the defendant to plead guilty to two misdemeanors. Nor did the government propose any changes to Paragraph 6 of the Plea Agreement, in which the United States had agreed to recommend a sentence of probation. The defendant rejected these counterproposals and refused further negotiations…His newly invented claim in his motion that the government “inexplicably demanded Mr. Biden plead guilty to felonies with jail time” is patently false, unsupported by evidence, and belied by his own letter and representations in his filings in the Delaware case.”
The rest of the filing is equally devastating.
Weiss notes that Biden repeatedly misrepresents facts or claims authority that does not exist. He notes that Biden does not cite any cases of similarly situated individuals who were not prosecuted. For example, it notes:
“The only attempt the defendant makes to link animus directly to prosecutors is his claim that “reports indicate Mr. Weiss himself admitted [the charges] would not have been brought against the average American.” Motion at 13. However, his citation does not include a reference to reports (plural), rather it includes a single New York Times citation, which includes a denial immediately after the quoted excerpt: “A senior law enforcement official forcefully denied the account.” An anonymous account that is “forcefully denied” is not evidence that can satisfy the defendant’s burden of producing “clear evidence” of discriminatory intent and animus by prosecutors.”
In rejecting the two cases that he references, Weiss takes a swipe at Hunter’s book. When he published the book, some of us noted that he was making statements against his own interest in possible prosecutions. Weiss just made that a reality:
“The defendant compares himself to only two individuals: Robert Shaughnessy and Roger Stone, both of whom resolved their tax cases civilly for failing to pay taxes. Shaughnessy failed to file and pay his taxes, but he was not alleged to have committed tax evasion. By contrast, the defendant chose to file false returns years later, failed to pay when those returns were filed, and lied to his accountants repeatedly, claiming personal expenses as business expenses. Stone failed to pay his taxes but did timely file his returns, unlike the defendant. Neither Shaughnessy nor Stone illegally purchased a firearm and lied on background check paperwork. And neither of them wrote a memoir in which they made countless statements proving their crimes and drawing further attention to their criminal conduct. These two individuals are not suitable comparators, and since the defendant fails to identify anyone else, his claim fails.”
The brief even takes a shot at the use of public statements by former Attorney General Eric Holder to prove selective prosecution, noting that Holder seems hopelessly conflicted in his own claim of selective prosecution:
“The defendant cites media commentary by former Attorney General Eric Holder, who acknowledged that the defendant is not similarly situated to other individuals: ‘This isn’t some kind of ordinary run-of-the-mill tax case, [] this was an abuse of the tax system . . .'”
The filing annihilates the public claims of Hunter and his allies. It is the difference between making a case in the court of public opinion and making a case in an actual court of law.
This whole charade is nothing more than an attempt to drag out the case until “the Big Guy” can pardon him on his way out the door.
Oh wow, a blistering report has been filed. Well, that ‘ell show ’em whose in charge !
The abject corruption of the entire Biden family is quite literally unfathomable.
There is no bottom.
That base and ignominious crew pursues said corruption juxtaposed against the majesty and nobility of the American Founders and Framers, the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
Disgusting!
OT Director Jonathan Glazer reportedly used his Oscar acceptance speech [no, I didn’t watch] to refute his Jewishness.
‘Refute’ all you want, Jonathan, but the usual savages will still hate you and strike at opportune moments. That was learned in pre-war Germany by some who thought they were safe because they had long ago refuted their Jewishness.
You can refute your Jewishness but the savages will not refute their hate.
Glazer has made himself cowardly and contemptible.
This filing also annihilates the blistering attacks on Weiss when he was appointed special counsel.
Jonathan Turley: “Garland could not have selected anyone, with the possible exception of Hunter Biden who would be worse at this moment than David Weiss…(Weiss) is under this cloud of suspicion, who’s been accused by his own team of running a fixed investigation.
Ted Cruz: “”I think it’s disgraceful. David Weiss was the U.S. attorney handpicked to lead this investigation who spent the last five years covering it up. I believe special prosecutor David Weiss is protecting the Biden family…David Weiss was either an active participant in covering up this criminality and protecting Joe Biden in engaging in obstruction of justice.”
Glad to see Turley has changed his tune about the prosecutor Trump appointed as US Attorney for Delaware.
Not it does not. Hunter personally attacked Weiss.
Hunter is employing the same tactics that Trump is using.
But not under the same conditions.
When those going after you ARE engaged in a political vendeta – pissing them off can be a tactical and strategic move.
If they get angry that makes them look bad, and it is generally good to have lawless political enemies acting out of rage.
They tend to make mistakes.
It is stupid as schiff to attack those who have actually been trying to protect you. Getting them angry risks losing their protection.
There is zero doubt that Weiss has made numerous decisions that have benefited Hunter and that are at the very least unusual and questionable.
That is less likely in the future if you attack him.
The worst possible scenario for Hunter would be for Weiss to say f#$k it, I am the SC. I am answerable to no one.
Joe is going to lose anyway, and we know that Joe is going to pardon Hunter anyway.
Maybe I should do my job and actually prosecute this t#rd for the things he has done.
But this is even worse than that – Hunter has told obvious lies in his brief.
Shades of Fanni Willis in GA.
No one has changed their tune.
But we are celebrating when the lawless start turning on each other,
or when one of them chooses to actually do their job,
rather than treat a sc#mbag with kid gloves because his last name is Biden
Hopefully Weiss and his office might now sometimes do their job.
Man oh man, it sure does run in the family. Hunter has been found to lie to the prosecutor and Joe admits that he told a lie when he called the murderer of Laken Riley an illegal immigrant. For a guy who’s supposed to be on top of it it turns out instead that he and his son are covered with it. I hope that when Biden and Trump debate the parents of Laken Riley will have a front row seat. I’m sure that at the event Joe will express his condolences to the parents of Lincoln Riley. Him having such a big heart and all.
So Joe is admitting to lying for pretty much the only time he has told the truth.
Wait a minute. Did this person just say “when Trump and Biden debate. . .?” It is very obvious to me that Joe Biden’s handlers will never allow him to debate Donald Trump. Joe cannot string two sentences together without messing up, let alone engage in a ninety minute or two hour debate where he is not reading a teleprompter. Letting the American people see him in action, speaking extemporaneously, could be disastrous for the Democrats’ hopes of getting him re-elected.
Oh wow a filing … what an immense punishment. I’m not sure the well meaning and feeble old joe can bear such a burden put upon the smartest man in the world he knows, his son, the one who didn’t die in the war overseas and whose business and business associates old joe knows nothing about and has never discussed anything with. Old joe knows for sure though, hunter has not taken one dime from china, not ONE DIIIIMMMMME !!!
What a waste, nothing will happen, they will INSTEAD ARREST ONE OF THE TRUMP BOYS.
We should all care, about a court of law not their shannigens / indeed jack smith entire case against trump relies on the men’s rea of doj standard of not enough math wilst trump took an oath to protect preserve and defend. Whose version wins – the constitution or the bogus wide spread fraud notion/ does the article 2 oath trump -0or is our standard not enough fraud
Smith’s case relies on persuading first multiple judges and then juries that innocent acts are crimes merely because those on the left do not like them.
That has nothing to do with Mens Rae.
Mentioning Men’s Rae demonstrates how difficult the prosecution of Trump is – or would be following the rule of Law.
To get to a Men’s Rea defense in FL the SC must get the courts – probably the US Supreme court to decide that JW v. NARA is bad case law,
Which would have the side effect of making Clinton and Obama criminals. They would also have to decide that Congress has the power to make laws that constrain the presidents execution of powers delegated to him – not the legislature in the constitution.
Assuming that you get that far – Then Trump would still have the defence that “I relied on the holding of JW V NARA and could not have known 4 years ago that SCOTUS was going to reverse it.
With respect to the J6 and GA cases there is no possible Mens rae arguments.
Trump is arguing that his actions are legitimate actions.
There is not and can not be any law that precludes attempting to “overturn” and election – that would violate the first amendment.
There can be laws of general applicability that sanction specific acts in the course of seeking to overturn an election – as an example, you can not bribe someone in government for any purpose.
You can BTW command others to commit illegal acts – so long as those others are NOT subordinate to you.
Trump could have legally (but not morally) ordered Raffensberger to inject fraudulent ballots. While that is not what Trump did, the point is that it would still be legal. Trump could NOT however order Meadows to inject fraudulent Ballots.
For speech to be an unprotected criminal act their must be a reasonable possibility of that speech turning into actions.