By Brooke Mallory, OAN Staff
Thursday, July 25, 2024, 4:00 p.m.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers made “false statements” in seeking to have criminal charges in California dropped, and a federal judge has threatened to punish them for it.
advertisement
In his order Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarci called on Hunter Biden’s lawyers to “show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the false statements made in the motion.”
Scalci also said that despite false claims by Biden’s lawyers, U.S. Attorney David Weiss did not indict Biden until the president’s son was appointed special counsel.
“However, these statements are untrue, and Mr. Biden’s lawyers know they are untrue,” Scarci wrote.
In a motion filed in court last week, Biden’s lawyers asked that criminal charges against him in California be dropped. Biden is set to go on trial in the fall on charges of filing false tax returns and tax evasion. They also filed a motion asking a Delaware judge to dismiss criminal charges against Hunter Biden related to a federal firearms case in which he was convicted last month.
The lawyers pointed to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon in Florida dismissing a classified documents lawsuit against former President Trump because special counsel Jack Smith had not been formally appointed. Judge Cannon said Congress’ constitutional role in the nomination process was “effectively usurped” by appointing him as special counsel.
In an effort to get Weiss’s charges dropped, Biden’s lawyers argued that Weiss had years of experience as a U.S. attorney and was “free to bring any charges he deemed justifiable, but did not do so until he obtained the special counsel title he sought.”
According to Scarce’s ruling, Weiss filed the initial charges against Biden while serving as US attorney and before he was appointed special counsel. Biden was expected to plead guilty, but after a plea deal fell apart the previous year, Weiss began prosecuting Biden and preparing for trial.
“The false statements in the present complaint are not trivial, and Weiss’s filing of charges against Biden in her capacity as a federal prosecutor creates a meaningful difference between this case and the non-binding district court ruling on which Biden bases his complaint,” Scarci wrote.
“But Biden’s motion does not address this distinction. Rather, counsel avoids the issue by misrepresenting the history of the litigation,” he continued, adding that courts “have little tolerance for counsel’s lack of candor.”
Biden’s lawyers have seven days to respond to the order, “with the potential for sanctions being imposed if a satisfactory response is not provided within that time frame,” Scarce said.
Stay up to date! Receive the latest news directly in your email for free. Sign up here: https://www.oann.com/alerts
Advertisement below
Please share this post!
