A federal judge in Delaware on Friday refused to dismiss firearms charges against Hunter Biden, rejecting several challenges from President Biden’s son who claimed he was being prosecuted for political purposes.
The younger Biden filed a series of motions late last year accusing special counsel David Weiss of “causing to political pressure” in building the case against him.
In three separate filings on Friday, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika rejected the defense’s argument that the case should be dismissed on grounds of “vindictive prosecution,” saying that Mr. It rejected Biden’s claim that he had been promoted to the prosecutor’s office and invalidated his motion to dismiss based on immunity. It was awarded through a now-defunct plea agreement.
A judge appointed by former President Trump has not yet ruled on a constitutional challenge to Biden’s charges under the Second Amendment.
Norieka said in his ruling that Hunter Biden’s lawyers have not presented concrete evidence to support their claim that outside influences tainted the special counsel’s decision to pursue the case. .
“While the pressure campaign from Congressional Republicans may have occurred around the time the special counsel decided to proceed with the indictment rather than pretrial diversion, the court did not consider the conduct of these members (or others) “Nothing has been given that is credible to suggest that there was any influence on the Special Counsel,” she wrote. “It’s all speculation.”
Biden was indicted on three gun-related charges last September. Two charges are for failing to disclose drug use when attempting to purchase a weapon, and the other is for illegally possessing a firearm while intoxicated by a controlled substance.he begged He was acquitted of all charges after an agreement with the government collapsed.
Under the agreement, he would plead guilty to two tax violations to avoid formal gun-related charges under certain conditions.
After the deal was put on hold, Biden’s lawyer Abe Lowell accused the Justice Department of changing its decision “on the fly.”
“One, they wrote something, but they weren’t clear on what it meant. Two, they knew what they wanted to say, and misdirected it against counseling.” “Third, they changed their view while they were in a Delaware courtroom,” he said of the then-prosecutors in an interview with CBS News.
His lawyers also argued that the release remained valid because he waived “valuable rights” as part of the deal.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
