As RedState reported, Hunter Biden’s legal team has settled on a new tactic. Namely, they are suggesting that the incredibly controversial and unprecedented diversion agreement, which grants broad immunity to the president’s son, is binding and in effect.
Here’s what Hunter Biden’s lawyer had to say on Face the Nation Sunday.
With our understanding that it would be broad immunity. And the language, as the judge pointed out, is a very broad phrase. It says encompassing all the facts that were in the document that sets out the transactions.
So there are two different agreements, as you point out. And on July 26, what was very clear is that the prosecution presented the diversion agreement, which they signed, which we signed, and as an agreement of which they have described it as being a standalone, independent bilateral agreement with two signatures on it. That agreement is different than the plea. The plea has not fallen, the plea did not go forward. The diversion agreement is already filed in court and it has the signatures necessary for it to be binding.
That’s now being made an official claim via a new filing in the U.S. District Court in the District of Delaware, and there are some other interesting inclusions that are going to leave people suspicious as to what’s really going on.
First, here’s the filing in full.
The first thing to notice is that Hunter Biden’s team is now asserting that the questions presented by Judge Maryellen Noreika on July 26th are now mooted in agreement with the prosecution, which is seeking to dismiss the charges in Delaware in order to supposedly move them to another district.
Secondly, the filing also notes that the original plea and diversion agreement worked out between the two parties did constitute a complete end to the “sprawling five-year investigation.” The notion of broad immunity comes immediately after that in the filing when Hunter Biden’s team says the diversion agreement is in effect, essentially repeating the exchange made on Face the Nation that Jennifer Van Laar covered in her piece.
Here’s where the suspicion is going to come in. It all feels very convenient that the July 26th questions are being mooted and the diversion agreement is being asserted as binding just as the DOJ is making moves to head to federal court in Washington, D.C. If this all feels coordinated, that’s because there’s plenty of reason to believe it is, not the least of which is that these are the same two sides (Weiss and Hunter Biden) that formulated the sweetheart plea deal in the first place.
Is Weiss, the newly-crowned special counsel, wanting to get out of Judge Noreika’s district because she actually bothered to ask questions and follow the law? Why move the charges now and not before? These are all questions that are kind of just hanging out there, only being dealt with via cursory explanations. Will the new judge consider the diversion agreement, which has the controversial broad immunity provisions, binding? The answer is very likely in the affirmative.
No one can say for sure, but given the history of this case, I certainly don’t trust that the DOJ and Hunter Biden’s team aren’t working together to bail out of Delaware and orchestrate a new plea deal in a much friendlier jurisdiction. Everything about this ordeal stinks.