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.

Business

Trump trade war expands globally as 25% tariffs on aluminium and steel take effect

Published

3 hours ago

March 12, 2025

admin

Trump trade war expands globally as 25% tariffs on aluminium and steel take effect

Donald Trump’s trade war has expanded to cover the world, with 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminium imports to the US in effect from today, affecting UK products worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

The duties were announced in mid-February as stock market investors cheered President Trump‘s ‘America first’ agenda which saw only Mexico, Canada and China come under initial pressure.

While two rounds of tariffs on China have been enacted, 25% duties on some Canadian and most Mexican cross-border trade have been withdrawn until 2 April at the earliest.

The tariffs beginning today are designed to protect US manufacturing and bolster jobs by making foreign-made products less attractive.

Money latest: Are Lifetime ISAs fi for purpose?

They threaten to make the cost of things like cars to soft drink cans – and therefore some drinks – more expensive.

Canada is the biggest exporter of both steel and aluminium to America. However, the White House on Tuesday rowed back on a threat to double the country’s tariff to 50%.

The American tariffs are a threat to UK steel exports worth north of £350m annually – with the bulk of that coming from stainless steel.

The business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said on Wednesday morning that while he was disappointed, there would be no immediate retaliation by the UK government as negotiations continue over a wider trade deal with the US.

“I will continue to engage closely and productively with the US to press the case for UK business interests,” he said.

The EU, however, vowed to retaliate with €26bn of counter tariffs on US goods starting from 1 April,

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said she remained open to “meaningful dialogue” with the US.

During Mr Trump’s first term, the bloc countered tariffs with charges on products such as US-made bourbon and jeans which were later suspended.

These duties would be re-imposed from April, the Commission said, with further products added to match the value of the US tariff hit.

Industry body UK Steel said it was a trading partner with the US, not a threat, and urged a government response.

Any fall in demand among US customers will leave producers scrambling for new markets, though some could be directed to domestic projects within the UK.

That steel could prove attractive as China, the world’s largest producer of steel, has threatened to limit its exports in response to the Trump tariffs.

President Trump is under growing pressure to row back, particularly in his planned battle with nearest neighbours Mexico and Canada.

Markets have turned on the tariff regime, with jitters about the effects of higher import prices souring the US economy first being seen through the currency and bond markets.

The dollar has lost around five cents against both the pound and a resurgent euro alone in the past few weeks.

Stock markets have joined in, with the combined market value of the broad S&P 500’s constituent companies down by more than $4trn on the peak seen just last month.

The big fear is that the protectionism will push the world’s largest economy into recession – a scenario Mr Trump did not deny was possible during a weekend interview.

👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈

US firms, already also grappling the complexities associated with an expanding tariff regime, are also letting it be known that they expect damage to their own businesses.

Delta Airlines lowered its first quarter growth forecast on the back of the turmoil this week while US firms are increasingly facing product boycotts.

Travel bodies have also reported a big drop in the number of Canadians crossing the US border, with road trips down by almost a quarter last month compared to February 2023 according to Statistics Canada.

Business

Small acts of defiance in Canada raise question of what country can do against Trump’s tariff trade war

Published

3 hours ago

March 12, 2025

admin

Small acts of defiance in Canada raise question of what country can do against Trump's tariff trade war

In Miche cafe and bar in British Columbia’s capital, Victoria, owner Allan Sinclair is turning around specific alcohol bottles on the top shelf to hide the labels from public view.

He picks up a bottle of Jack Daniels.

“This is from Tennessee and they supported Trump so we can’t have that,” he says.

How Trump’s tariffs could cost UK consumers

A bottle of Wayne Gretzky’s cream liquor is nearly finished.

“Once it’s gone, I’m going to get rid of it,” says Allan. “He’s shown he doesn’t respect our country anymore.”

Gretzky, once a Canadian ice hockey hero, has alienated many here with his steadfast support of the American president.

Allan also sells “Canadianos,” which he says, wryly, are stronger than Americanos.

They are quiet but considered acts of defiance in the face of a trade war started by the United States.

“It is a small protest in the form of a coffee,” he says. “What we can do is hope that they don’t follow up with all of this madness.”

Tuesday began with Donald Trump announcing a 50% tariff on aluminium and steel coming from Canada. Just hours later, that was revised back down to 25%.

There is a grinding, on-off, tit-for-tat nature to these economic punishments.

The British Columbia premier David Eby retaliated to the Trump tariffs by prohibiting the sale of American-manufactured alcohol in his province.

‘Buy Canadian Instead’

BC Liquor Store is just steps away from the premier’s office in Victoria.

On the shelves where Kentucky bourbon would usually be there are signs saying: “Buy Canadian Instead.”

Dozens of bottles of California and Oregon wine are wrapped tightly with cellophane.

But the threats from the Trump administration don’t end with tariffs.

The president has stated repeatedly that he’s keen to make Canada the 51st state. Even referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor”.

Premier Eby tells Sky News: “These are deeply unnerving statements for the president to be making, especially in the context of clearly expansionist policies related to Greenland and the Panama Canal.

“What we get continually about the president is to take him seriously, but not literally.

“I would love to have that kind of luxury… the danger, I think, is not taking him literally and seriously.”

‘I’m trying to buy anything but American‘

On the ferry which connects Vancouver Island with the mainland, tariff fatigue is setting in.

Passenger Nancy, a government worker, says she thinks Donald Trump is intent on causing mayhem. “He’s a menace, he’s just creating chaos where it doesn’t need to be.”

Her colleague Laura says the silver lining is that the tariffs have galvanised Canadians together.

“People feel hurt and angry,” she says. “We are trying to buy more Canadian products and travel anywhere other than the United States. I had a trip booked to Las Vegas and we’ve cancelled that. When I go to the grocery store, I look for the Canadian maple leaf that a lot of grocery stores have put on the shelves. I’m trying to buy anything but American.”

Richard thinks Donald Trump’s end game is to weaken the Canadian economy.

“I think Trump had an agenda from the beginning, without a doubt. I think he wanted to cause a collapse of the Canadian economy so it would make it easier for him and his colleagues to buy up whatever they wanted, if not to make us a 51st state – it had nothing to do with Fentanyl, that was just a ruse.”

Trump’s ‘fiction’ Fentanyl claims

He’s referencing the Trump administration’s repeated claims that Fentanyl, a devastating opioid that has ravaged parts of both America and Canada, is flooding over the Canadian border into the US.

It’s the reason, they say, for starting this trade war.

Dr M-J Milloy, director of research at British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, says that this simply isn’t true.

“There is no one who knows anything about drug markets in North America who would agree with the statement that Canada is a substantial part of the problem in the United States. It is a fiction.”

“No question that Fentanyl has devastated the United States. Fentanyl is devastating Canada. And so I think in that way, it might be a potent way for Mr Trump to whip up enthusiasm and to justify this aggression,” he adds.

Whatever the reason – invented or otherwise – for this trade war, it’s making an enemy of this ally.

The question is, what power does Canada really have in the face of its much bigger, far wealthier neighbour?

Business

‘Shattering blow’ to farmers over pause to environmental payment scheme

Published

3 hours ago

March 12, 2025

admin

'Shattering blow' to farmers over pause to environmental payment scheme

A “shattering blow” has been dealt to farmers with the sudden pausing for new applications for environmental payments, according to the National Farmers’ Union.

The NFU says it was given just 30 minutes notice by the government that applications for the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) were to close on Tuesday.

The post-Brexit scheme, launched in 2022, pays farmers and land managers to take up practices that improve productivity and protect the environment and climate.

Politics latest: UK set to be hit by Trump’s steel tariffs

There were more than 100 options for farmers to choose from, including the management of hedgerows, organic farming development and providing habitat for wildlife.

The government says the budget for SFI has now been reached, adding that a “record” 50,000 farm businesses and more than half of all farmed land is now managed under the schemes.

Both Conservatives and Liberal Democrat politicians have criticised the move and the lack of any prior warning.

But NFU president Tom Bradshaw said the decision showed “how little” the Department for Environment, Food And Rural Affairs (Defra) understood the industry.

‘Growing disregard for agriculture within Defra’

“This is another shattering blow to English farms, delivered yet again with no warning, no understanding of the industry and a complete lack of compassion or care,” Mr Bradshaw said.

“Today’s terrible news was delivered with only 30 minutes warning to us before ministers briefed the press, leaving us unable to inform our members.

“There has been no consultation, no communication; there has been a total lack of the ‘partnership and co-design’ Defra loves to talk about. It is another example of the growing disregard for agriculture within the department.”

The government has said “every penny” in all existing SFI agreements will be paid to farmers, and outstanding eligible applications that have been submitted will also be taken forward.

It said details of a new SFI scheme will be announced following the Spending Review.

The ‘cruellest betrayal so far’

Dan Whitehead

West of England and Wales correspondent

@danwnews

It was only last week that thousands of farmers were protesting outside Downing Street at the inheritance tax policy that’s angered so many in agriculture.

But one group representing farmers said on Tuesday the SFI decision is the “cruellest betrayal so far”.

The scheme was introduced under the Conservatives post-Brexit, to encourage sustainable farming.

It took years to develop – and was seen as world leading in a way of ensuring farming was both productive for the sector and protective of the environment.

Although a new scheme after the spending review is promised, many farmers will be left wondering whether it’ll be as comprehensive.

The National Farmers’ Union was preparing on Wednesday to release a report saying that farming confidence in England and Wales is at its lowest level ever.

It’s described Tuesday’s news as a “bleak irony”.

In a statement, minister for food security and rural affairs Daniel Zeichner said: “This government is proud to have set the biggest budget for sustainable food produce in history, to boost growth in rural communities and all across the UK, under our plan for change.

“More farmers are now in schemes and more money is being spent through them than ever before. That is true today and will remain true tomorrow. 

“We have now successfully allocated the SFI24 budget as promised.”

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

The government claims the last administration left the scheme uncapped – and they had to put a limit on to stop it running over budget.

‘Absolutely bonkers’

Olly Harrison, an arable farmer on Merseyside who organised the latest farming protest in London earlier this month, said the decision showed farmers were being “attacked from every single angle”.

“It’s just absolutely bonkers. The scheme worked. It was to replace what we had when we were in Europe [the EU] and a lot of farms embraced it, they were doing real good with it.”

“Why have we got people who don’t understand and don’t understand the environment in power?”

Edward Morello, the Liberal Democrat MP for West Dorset, told Sky News the decision will “alarm farmers across the UK” – and called for the government to “start listening and responding” to the agricultural community.

Tim Farron, the MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, said the decision was made with “no warning”.

Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore said the change was “absolutely scandalous”.