How Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal Fell Apart

Published

2 years ago

July 28, 2023

admin

Hunter Biden’s plea agreement, which fell apart under scrutiny by a federal judge on Wednesday, was the product of extensive negotiations between his lawyers and David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware. Yet the two sides evidently did not anticipate that U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika would object to provisions that she called “not standard,” “not what I normally see,” and possibly “unconstitutional.” In particular, Noreika zeroed in on two highly unusual aspects of the agreement that seemed designed to shield Biden from the possibility that his father will lose reelection next year.

The original plan, which was announced last month and is now up in the air, consisted of two parts: a plea agreementand a diversion agreement. Under the former, Biden agreed that he would plead guilty to two misdemeanors involving his willful failure to pay income taxes, and prosecutors agreed to recommend a sentence of probation. Under the latter, the Justice Department agreed not to prosecute him for an illegal gun purchase if he successfully completed a two-year pretrial diversion program.

Among other things, the diversion agreement would have required Biden to avoid drugs, stay out of legal trouble, “continue or actively seek employment,” and permanently relinquish his Second Amendment rights. On that last point, the agreement says Biden will not “purchase, possess, or attempt to purchase or possess, or otherwise come into possession of, a firearm…during the Diversion Period or any time thereafter.” It also says Biden consents to “a permanent entry in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System,” meaning he would be blocked if he tried to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer.

Pretrial diversion is generally reserved for nonviolent offenders. In deciding which defendants qualify, the Justice Department says, a U.S. attorney “may formally or informally prioritize young offenders, those with substance abuse or mental health challenges, veterans, and others.” While Biden’s acknowledged drug problem fits within that description, it was also the reason he was charged with illegally buying a gun in the first place.

Under18 USC 922(g)(3), it is a felony for an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance to “receive” or “possess” a firearm. Biden, by his own admission, was a crack cocaine user when he bought a Colt Cobra .38 Special from StarQuest Shooters, a Wilmington gun store, in 2018. That crime was punishable by up to 10 years in prison when Biden committed it, and legislation that his father signed last year raised the maximum to 15 years. But under federal sentencing guidelines, the recommended penalty for a defendant like Biden, who has no prior criminal record, would be something like 10 to 16 months.

By participating in a diversion system that favors people with drug problems, Biden could avoid any such penalty. Yet but for his drug habit, there would have been no penalty to avoid: His crack use was the justification for charging him with a felony, and it also appears to be the main justification for sparing him prosecution on that charge. That paradox just scratches the surface of the unjust, illogical, and unconstitutional mess created by arbitrary federal restrictions on gun ownership.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Noreika did not pause to reflect on the senselessness of Biden’s situation vis–vis the gun charge. Instead, she focused on two puzzling provisions of the diversion agreement.

“If the United States believes that a knowing material breach of this Agreement
has occurred,” the document says, “it may seek a determination by the United States District Judge for the District of Delaware with responsibility for the supervision of this Agreement.” The Justice Department would ask that judgei.e., Noreikato determine, based on a “preponderance of the evidence,” whether Biden had in fact violated the agreement, and Biden would “have the right to present evidence to rebut any such claim.” If Noreika agreed with the Justice Department, prosecutors could decide to pursue the gun charge.

“Typically, the Justice Department could independently verify any breach and bring charges,”The New York Times noted. “But Mr. Biden’s team, concerned that the department might abuse that authority if [Donald] Trump is re-elected, successfully pushed to give that power to Judge Noreika, arguing that she would be a more neutral arbiter.” Noreika thought that provision raised separation-of-powers issues by requiring her to perform a prosecutorial function.

Noreika also questioned language in the diversion agreement that shields Biden from future prosecution for certain crimes. The document says “the United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed” by the statements of facts regarding his tax offenses and his illegal gun purchase.

Noreika thought it was odd to include such a promise in the diversion agreement, which according to both sets of lawyers did not require her approval, rather than the plea agreement, which does. “The judge said she couldn’t find another example of a diversion agreement so broad that it shielded the defendant from charges in a different case,”Politico reports. “Leo Wise, a prosecutor working for Weiss, told the judge he also was unaware of any such precedent.” Noreika objected to the apparent expectation that she would “rubber stamp” that seemingly novel arrangement.

It also became clear that the Justice Department and Biden’s lawyers disagreed about the scope of his immunity. “Wise said the agreement meant they wouldn’t charge Biden with more serious crimes related to his 2017 and 2018 taxes,” according to Politico, “and they wouldn’t charge him for crimes related to the gun mentioned in the diversion agreement.” But Wise said the federal investigation of Biden was ongoing. And when Noreika alluded to allegations that Biden had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act through activities mentioned in the statement of facts regarding his tax crimeswhich refers to income he received as a board member of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, for exampleWise said the agreement would not preclude prosecution under that statute.

Christopher Clark, Biden’s lawyer, rejected that interpretation. “Then there’s no deal,” Wise replied. Clark concurred: “As far as I’m concerned, the plea agreement is null and void.”

That dramatic breakdown was followed by a recess during which the defense and the prosecution settled on the interpretation favored by the government. “Clark said Biden’s team now agreed with the prosecutors that the scope of the agreement was charges on the gun, tax issues, and drug use,”Politico reports. But that reconciliation did not allay Noreika’s concerns about an overreaching diversion agreement.

The supposedly unreviewable promise regarding future prosecution, like the provision charging Noreika with deciding whether Biden had violated the diversion program’s requirements, was aimed at insulating him from politically driven decisions by the Justice Department under a Republican administration. As the Times notes, the provision provides “some protection against the possibility that Mr. Trump, if re-elected, or another Republican president might seek to reopen the case.”

Republicans, of course, complain that Biden received a “sweetheart deal” that would have allowed him to avoid prison and might also have protected him from prosecution for trading on his father’s influence. “The Justice Department could have readily proved serious tax felonies (involving more than $10 million in income) and a gun offense carrying a potential 10-year sentence,” National Review Contributing Editor Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, writesin theNew York Post. “Both Hunter Biden and the Biden Justice Department wanted an arrangement that would giveHunter the maximum amount of immunity from prosecution for the minimum amount of criminal admissions they thought they could get away with.”

Just as it is hard to imagine that Biden could have earned a fortune for msterious services if his father had not been vice president, it is hard to imagine that his lenient treatment as a federal defendant had nothing to do with his father’s position as president. At the same time, Democrats are understandably concerned that a Republican administration’s pursuit of Biden might be motivated by considerations other than justice. Both sides assume that the Justice Department’s prosecutorial decisions are influenced by partisan politics, but they want us to believe that problem is peculiar to the other side.

In this context, judges like Noreika play a crucial role. They are under no obligation to approve sweetheart deals, and they can dismiss charges that are not adequately supported by the alleged facts. They also have broad discretion, within statutory limits, to impose penalties they think are commensurate with the offense. Those checks are no guarantee of justice, especially in cases involving conduct (such as Biden’s gun purchase) that should not be treated as a crime at all. But in a system where largely unaccountable prosecutors wield vast power to crush defendants or let them off with a slap on the wrist, any countervailing authority is welcome.

UK

‘Crushing blow’ for care homes as they face ban on overseas recruitment

Published

1 min ago

May 11, 2025

admin

'Crushing blow' for care homes as they face ban on overseas recruitment

Care workers will no longer be recruited from abroad under plans to “significantly” bring down net migration, the home secretary has said.

Yvette Cooper told Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips programme the government will close the care worker visa route as part of new restrictions which aim to cut the number of low-skilled foreign workers by about 50,000 this year.

Politics live: Govt launches crackdown on migration

She said: “We’re going to introduce new restrictions on lower-skilled workers, so new visa controls, because we think actually what we should be doing is concentrating on the higher-skilled migration and we should be concentrating on training in the UK.

“Also, we will be closing the care worker visa for overseas recruitment”.

The move comes ahead of the Immigration White Paper to be laid out this week, which will give more details on the government’s reforms.

Care England, a charity which represents independent care services, described Ms Cooper’s comments as a “crushing blow to an already fragile sector” and said the government “is kicking us while we’re already down”.

Its chief executive Martin Green said international recruitment is a “lifeline” and there are “mounting vacancies” in the sector.

Cooper refuses to give immigration target

Ministers have already announced changes to the skilled visa threshold to require a graduate qualification and higher salary.

Ms Cooper told Trevor Phillips that this – along with the care worker restrictions – will result in a reduction “probably in the region of up to 50,000 low-skilled worker visas in the course of this year alone”.

However, she refused to give a wider target on the amount the government wants to see net migration come down by overall, only saying that it needs to come down “substantially”.

Ms Cooper said the Conservatives repeatedly set targets they couldn’t meet and her plan was about “restoring credibility and trust”.

She said: “It’s about preventing this chaotic system where we had overseas recruitment soar while training in the UK was cut and we saw low-skilled migration in particular, hugely go up at the same time as UK residents in work or in training fell. That is a broken system. So that is what we need to change.”

The government is under pressure after it’s drubbing at the local elections, when Reform UK took control of 10 councils in England.

Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, said the party’s strong performance was because people are angry about both legal and illegal immigration and called for immigration to be “frozen”.

He told Trevor Phillips: “The reality is that we’ve just won by an absolute landslide – the elections Thursday last week – because people are raging, furious, about the levels of both illegal and legal immigration in this country.

“We need to freeze immigration because the way to get our economy going is to freeze immigration, get wages up for British workers, train our own people, get our own people who are economically inactive back into work.”

Net migration – the difference between the number of people immigrating and emigrating to a country – soared when the UK left the EU in January 2020.

It reached 903,000 in the year to June 2023 before falling to 728,000 in mid-2024.

According to the Home Office, the number of ‘Health and Care Worker’ visas increased from 31,800 in 2021 to 145,823 in 2023, with the rise primarily due to an increase in South Asian and Sub-Saharan African nationals coming to work as care workers.

The number decreased significantly in 2024 to 27,174 – due to measures introduced by the Tories and greater compliance activity, the government said.

The crackdown is likely to cause concern in the care sector, which has long warned that low wages are driving a recruitment crisis and is now also being hit by the rise in employer National Insurance.

Speaking to the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Ms Cooper said there are around 10,000 people in the UK who came on care worker visas for jobs that didn’t exist and “care companies should recruit from that pool”.

“They came in good faith but there were no proper checks, they were badly exploited,” she said.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Nadra Ahmed, of the National Care Association, told Sky News this was a “scandal of the Home Office’s own making”, with care workers allowed to come to the UK “legitimately but with spurious contracts from profiteers preying on an already fragile sector”.

She added: “Understandably, many of those who are displaced have a preference of which part of the sector they work in or are qualified to do so, based on the promises made to them.

“Our preference would always be to recruit from within our domestic options but sadly we are not able to generate enough interest in social care when the funding remains a barrier to ensure that pay adequately rewards the skills and expertise of our workforce.”

UK

Labour’s shift on migration may assuage voters’ concerns – but risks harming struggling care sector

Published

1 min ago

May 11, 2025

admin

Labour's shift on migration may assuage voters' concerns - but risks harming struggling care sector

Labour and the Conservatives have been left reeling from Reform UK’s rampant success at the local elections.

And it seems both have taken a clear message from the insurgent party’s signature attitude towards migration.

Politics live: Care homes face ban on overseas recruitment

Polls regularly show the issue is a top concern for voters. While stopping the boats driving illegal migration is proving as difficult for Labour as it was for the Tories – the government has the levers to control legal migration much more directly.

This week, Sir Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper have decided it’s time to pull them, with their long-awaited white paper due to be published on Monday. But the trade offs involved in reforming the system certainly aren’t without controversy.

Speaking to Sky’s Sir Trevor Phillips to sell her plans to reduce visa numbers, the home secretary repeatedly talked about “restoring control”.

It’s no coincidence to hear her invoking the language of Brexit – highlighting the fact it was Boris Johnson who presided over the spiralling increase in migration after the vote to leave the European Union – and attempting to court the voters who believed doing so would close the borders to the influx of overseas workers.

“It’s about restoring control and order,” she said. “It’s about preventing this chaotic system where we had overseas recruitment soar while training in the UK was cut…

“That is a broken system. So that is what we need to change.”

The home office plan is to link the reduction in overseas workers with government efforts to get the economically inactive back into work. In future, only those with degree-level qualifications will be eligible for skilled worker visas.

Employers who want to employ lower-skilled workers, on a temporary basis, will have to demonstrate they are training and recruiting UK workers as well.

The home secretary says 180 occupations will be removed from the shortage list, with the shortfall filled by training schemes to fill the gaps with home-grown workers. Questions abound about how training schemes will marry up with immediate business needs now.

But it’s the closure of the specific care worker visa which is leading to the loudest alarm bells thus far.

Many in the sector are desperately worried about pre-existing staffing shortfalls, unconvinced by government advice to recruit from a pool of 10,000 workers already in the UK on care visas.

Professor Martin Green, of Care England, said: “This is a crushing blow to an already fragile sector. The government is kicking us while we’re already down.”

But the government is determined to try and wean the economy off its dependence on overseas labour.

The increase in net migration is staggering. Before Brexit, the highest figure was 329,000, in the year up to June 2015.

But by June 2023, the annual number had soared to 906,000. While last year that figure fell to 728,000, following restrictions on dependents on care and student visas – the number is still strikingly high.

Kemi Badenoch’s Tories have decided there’s no room for evasion and have regularly issued dramatic apologies for the decisions of the past.

“The last government,” said Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp on Sunday, as if he had no part of it, “made some very serious mistakes with immigration. They allowed it to be far, far too high…that was a huge mistake.”

But Mr Philp is characteristically full of criticism of Labour’s “failure” on the “radical reforms” needed.

He wants to see parliament voting for an annual cap on numbers, although hasn’t specified what that would be.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Ms Cooper says migration targets have no credibility after years of Tory failures – but also acknowledged that she wants the numbers to fall “substantially” and “significantly” below 500,000.

She claims the skilled worker visa changes will lead to 50,000 fewer visas being issued this year alone – a small proportion of that overall too, but a quick result all the same.

Will it be enough?

Reform UK are clearly delighted to be directing the government’s policy agenda.

Deputy leader Richard Tice told Sir Trevor “the Labour Party is talking the talk. Will they actually walk the walk? I actually think the people are voting for us because they know that we mean it.”

But the policy is a risk.

Assuaging voters’ concerns on migration could mean taking a serious hit to an already anaemic economy and struggling care sector. Not to mention the longer-term political decision to move the party firmly to the right.

World

‘Have the meeting now!’: Trump says Ukraine should ‘immediately’ agree to direct talks with Russia

Published

2 hours ago

May 11, 2025

admin

'Have the meeting now!': Trump says Ukraine should 'immediately' agree to direct talks with Russia

US President Donald Trump has demanded that Ukraine should “immediately” agree to direct talks with Russia in a bid to end the war.

It comes after Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his team were “ready to meet” Russian representatives following Vladimir Putin suggestion of peace talks, subject to an unconditional ceasefire starting on Monday.

Russia‘s president put forward the proposal for talks in Istanbul on Thursday after European leaders including Sir Keir Starmer threatened him with fresh sanctions if Russia failed to comply with an unconditional 30-day ceasefire starting on Monday.

Analysis:
Why calls for Ukraine talks are likely a delaying tactic from Putin

However, in a post on his Truth Social platform on Sunday, Mr Trump said he was “starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin”.

He urged them to accept the meeting invitation “immediately”, adding “have the meeting now”.

Mr Trump wrote: “President Putin of Russia doesn’t want to have a ceasefire agreement with Ukraine, but rather wants to meet on Thursday, in Turkey, to negotiate a possible end to the bloodbath.

“Ukraine should agree to this, immediately. At least they will be able to determine whether or not a deal is possible, and if it is not, European leaders, and the US will know where everything stands, and can proceed accordingly.

“I’m starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin, who’s too busy celebrating the Victory of World War ll, which could not have been won (not even close!) without the United States of America.

“Have the meeting now!”

Shortly after Mr Trump’s post, Mr Zelenskyy posted on X saying: “We await a full and lasting ceasefire, starting from tomorrow, to provide the necessary basis for diplomacy.

“There is no point in prolonging the killings. And I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally. I hope that this time the Russians will not look for excuses.”

When Mr Putin first suggested the talks, Mr Trump hailed it “a potentially great day for Russia and Ukraine” and said he would “work with both sides to make sure it happens”.

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan also said he “fully supported” Mr Putin’s proposal and was ready to host the talks, after the two leaders spoke over the phone on Sunday.

But security and defence analyst Michael Clarke told Sky News presenter Matt Barbet there is a “long way between now and Thursday” and a “fair bit of brinkmanship” going on.

He said even if the talks do go ahead, “the chances are they’ll extend over a long period and there won’t be a ceasefire as a result of them, and the Russians will keep playing this out”.

Mr Putin’s counteroffer of talks came after Sir Keir, Mr Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, recently elected German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk met in Kyiv.

The leaders said they had secured Mr Trump’s backing after briefing him on the progress made on the so-called “coalition of the willing” plans in a 20-minute phone call.