A federal judge expressed doubts about Hunter Biden’s efforts to dismiss his indictment on tax charges after his plea deal fell through. The failed plea deal had promised immunity for tax issues that are also included in the current felony indictment against President Joe Biden’s son. However, US District Judge Mark Scarsi suggested that the terms of the deal, including the immunity, may not have been fully implemented as it lacked a necessary approval signature.
Hunter Biden’s legal team is making several attempts to have the tax case in California thrown out. In response, prosecutors from the special counsel accused the lawyers of employing a strategy of attacking the prosecutors due to a lack of factual basis for their arguments. They argued that Hunter Biden’s lawyers are presenting baseless claims and engaging in revisionist history in their attempts to dismiss the case.
Prosecutor Leo Wise criticized the tactics used by Hunter Biden’s legal team, characterizing their arguments as lacking in factual evidence and relying on revisionist history. The prosecutors are pushing back against Hunter Biden’s attempts to have the tax case dismissed, arguing that the defense is resorting to attacks on the prosecution as they do not have a strong factual basis for their arguments. This back and forth between the defense and prosecution is playing out in a courtroom as special counsel David Weiss watches the ongoing hearing.
The hearing drew the attention of special counsel David Weiss, who is directly involved in the case against Hunter Biden. The proceedings focused on the failed plea deal that promised immunity for tax issues now included in the current indictment. US District Judge Mark Scarsi expressed skepticism about the implementation of the immunity terms due to a missing approval signature from the Delaware probation office. Hunter Biden’s legal team is making various legal arguments in an attempt to have the tax case in California dismissed, while prosecutors from the special counsel are pushing back against these arguments, accusing the defense of resorting to attacks on the prosecution due to a lack of factual basis for their claims.
