Read on Twitter
THREAD: Why did the Hunter Biden plea deal fall apart?
1/ Earlier today, during a hearing when Hunter Biden was expected to plead guilty, the plea deal was scuttled after the judge asked whether he would be immune from prosecution for other possible crimes as a result of the deal.
nytimes.com/live/2023/07/2…
nytimes.com/live/2023/07/2…
2/ After prosecutors said that it would not do so, Hunter Biden’s lawyers said that the deal was off.
Why did they do that?
To borrow the name of my podcast with @AshaRangappa_, it’s complicated.
Why did they do that?
To borrow the name of my podcast with @AshaRangappa_, it’s complicated.
3/ As a starting point, the plea deal involved two crimes that are rarely charged as a federal crime— possessing a firearm while addicted to drugs and failing to pay taxes.
As I explained in my @politico column (below), in context, he was treated harshly. politico.com/news/magazine/…
As I explained in my @politico column (below), in context, he was treated harshly. politico.com/news/magazine/…
4/ Most of the time, these crimes aren’t worth federal prosecutors investigating or prosecuting.
That said, they may be easy to prove in this case— there is likely no serious question that he didn’t fully pay his taxes and that he possessed the firearm while addicted to drugs.
That said, they may be easy to prove in this case— there is likely no serious question that he didn’t fully pay his taxes and that he possessed the firearm while addicted to drugs.
5/ So it’s easy to see why the defense agreed to this plea deal. It wasn’t worth contesting these crimes, and if this wrapped up the investigation, it was a good result for their client.
6/ To be clear, the prosecution said their investigation was “ongoing.”
Presumably the defense believed, based on the information provided by prosecutors as well as informal statements made by them, that despite this statement, the prosecution had run down all the loose ends.
Presumably the defense believed, based on the information provided by prosecutors as well as informal statements made by them, that despite this statement, the prosecution had run down all the loose ends.
7/ It’s not unusual for these things to be fuzzy.
Prosecutors can’t promise that they won’t find more evidence tomorrow, which will change their plans.
The defense often had to rely on informal discussions and imperfect information.
Prosecutors can’t promise that they won’t find more evidence tomorrow, which will change their plans.
The defense often had to rely on informal discussions and imperfect information.
8/ The judge’s question was fair, and the prosecution’s answer was accurate. This was not an immunity deal.
But perhaps the way this has played out, along with public/GOP pressure on prosecutors to investigate Hunter Biden further, has the defense concerned.
But perhaps the way this has played out, along with public/GOP pressure on prosecutors to investigate Hunter Biden further, has the defense concerned.
9/ If this *isn’t* the end of the road for Hunter Biden, and more charges are coming, then this deal doesn’t offer nearly as much to him.
My guess, based on what little is known publicly, is that there will be more informal discussions between both sides and a deal goes forward.
My guess, based on what little is known publicly, is that there will be more informal discussions between both sides and a deal goes forward.
10/ If both sides remain at odds, that may mean that the defense has new information suggesting that further, more serious, charges are a real possibility. /end
UPDATE: There are now reports that there is a slightly revised deal, which doesn’t surprise me, for the reasons discussed above.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
