George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley persuasively argued the Biden Justice Department was being too cute by half when prosecutors crafted a very lenient plea deal for Hunter Biden.
But the judge overseeing the case would not let the deceptive gamesmanship stand.
Biden was expected to plead guilty Wednesday in a federal courthouse in Wilmington, Delaware, to two misdemeanor tax evasion charges and one illegal gun possession charge and likely do little or no jail time.
The deal appeared to come together quickly in June as the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee’s hearings into Biden’s overseas business dealings continued to heat up.
However, the deal fell through Wednesday when U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika called into question the blanket immunity from future prosecution that Biden’s attorneys believed the agreement involved.
Trending:
Under questioning from the judge, federal prosecutors denied the agreement that offered immunity from future prosecution.
Biden then withdrew from the plea deal and pleaded not guilty to the crimes.
“The problem with cutting a sweetheart deal is that you can’t put everything into the deal that is really on your mind,” Turley told Fox News on Wednesday.
“This is really a case of the Department of Justice being hoisted on its own petard, because the Justice Department needs to say that there’s an ongoing investigation to stop giving information, holding back witnesses to Congress. They need that element,” he argued.
Should Hunter Biden serve time in prison?
Yes: 100% (9 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
“But this judge immediately called them on it and said, ‘Well, what is it?’ The Hunter Biden team said publicly that they believe this was a closed-out plea agreement, which is what I would have negotiated as defense counsel,” Turley said.
The law professor explained that a close-out plea deal is the only type he would accept on behalf of anyone he would represent in court.
“Otherwise, you’ve got Damocles’ sword hanging over your client’s head,” Turley said.
That’s what Biden’s attorneys thought they had that all matters related to his overseas business dealing are exempt from further prosecution.
“But that’s inconsistent with the DOJ, which is using the ongoing element to hold off Congress,” Turley said.
So they’re trying to have it both ways: protect Biden from future criminal charges from past overseas business deals and protect the Biden family from damaging information coming out through Congress.
Noreika wouldn’t let it fly.
“And so this is really a problem of the DOJ’s making,” Turley said. “They want to cap off this case and end it, but they also want to pretend that it’s ongoing. And you can’t have that ambiguity with a federal judge.”
“The problem with this is it was a wink and a nod agreement, but courts don’t do that. They don’t conclude these types of plea bargains with a wink and a nod. They want express and clear understandings in the courts,” he further stated.
The professor concluded, “The judge has an obligation to see that justice is done, the public business is done.”
Amen!
The wheels of justice turn slowly, they say, and seemingly not at all at times, but it would appear they just may be starting to move in the Hunter Biden case.
