Will Scharf Profile picture
Dec 8 2 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
I have reviewed the new Hunter Biden indictment. As a former federal prosecutor, and someone who has followed the Hunter saga quite closely for years, here are my initial reactions:

(1) Hunter is in a lot of trouble.

With the sweetheart deal previously offered to him now off the table, Hunter is in an awful lot of trouble.

He is facing four counts of willfully failing to pay his taxes for tax years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, and two counts of failing to file a tax return for tax years 2017 and 2018, all in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

He is also charged with one count of tax evasion and two counts of filing false and fraudulent tax forms for tax year 2018, in violation of § 7201 and § 7206, for chalking up hundreds of thousands of dollars of fake business expenses. These fake expenses included payments for: hotel rooms that he turned into crack dens, payoffs for his girlfriends, strippers, escorts, luxury cars, a sex club membership, porn sites. He also tried to claim his daughter's law school tuition as business-related legal expenses. He tried to hide income, and made numerous false statements under penalty of perjury.

If he were to go to trial and be convicted of all of these counts, based on my calculations, the advisory federal sentencing guidelines range for him could easily reach 4–5 years' imprisonment. Even if he were to plead guilty to these counts, his guidelines range sentence would likely be around 3 years. That is a lot of prison time for the son of a sitting president.

(2) Weiss appears to be playing this straight
I said after David Weiss's appointment as special counsel that this was going to go in one of two directions:

Either Weiss was going to continue the concerted effort to cover up and clean up Hunter's long history of criminal activity to protect Joe Biden and the Biden family.

Or Weiss was going rogue, and would hammer Hunter with the full force of the law.

My assumption was cover up, but based on this indictment and the previous firearms indictment, I can't find fault with his actions thus far. He is appropriately and vigorously prosecuting the tax and gun crimes that we already knew about.

The real test will be what comes next.

Will Hunter be offered a new sweetheart plea deal to sweep this all under the rug?

Most importantly, will more indictments follow? Foreign money laundering? Failure to register as a foreign agent? Bribery?

Only time will tell, but I am hopeful that maybe—just maybe—we will see some justice here.

(3) Joe Biden is a liar
If the facts in the indictment are proven, and based on Hunter's previous abortive plea deal I believe they can be and will be, this indictment is further proof (as if we needed more) that Joe Biden lied repeatedly to the American people during the 2020 election.

"My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China." That was Joe Biden at the presidential debate on October 22, 2020. That was a lie.

Biden denied that Hunter had made "a fortune in China, in Moscow and various other places" at the presidential debate on September 29, 2020. That was a lie.

I could go on, but the point is made. Joe Biden needs to answer to the American people for his lies. They implicate him in criminal conspiracies abroad involving the shadiest of foreign actors, and cut to the heart of his fitness for office.

(4) More egg on the media's face
As if mainstream media credibility could fall even lower . . . .

The mainstream media was an active participant in Joe Biden's lies in 2020. The media actively ran cover, burying Hunter Biden stories, showing a startling lack of interest in the Biden family's web of foreign business interests, and insisting — insisting! — that there was nothing to see here.

The blackout on reporting about Hunter's now-validated laptop was the pinnacle of this all hands on deck effort.

I want to hear from the journalists who participated in burying these stories, who wrote fake "explainer" pieces on how the Republicans were conspiracy theorists, who lashed out at Trump for attacking Joe over the Hunter scandals.

Who decided that getting Joe elected was more important than uncovering the truth.

Is that what they taught you in journalism school?
This is absolutely right. The whistleblowes are the heroes here.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Will Scharf

Will Scharf Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @willscharf

Dec 8
Hunter Biden's tax free holiday shopping list!

He's making a list, deducting it twice, gonna find out which stripper he likes.

Hunter Biden's coming to town!

A thread of my favorite lines from the new Hunter Biden tax fraud indictment.

(1/16)
Hunter spent money on literally "everything but his taxes."

Drugs ✅
escorts ✅
girlfriends ✅
luxury hotels ✅
"items of a personal nature ✅

TAXES ❌

(2/16) Image
Hunter spent over twice as much on porn and strippers (adult entertainment) than he did on rehab.

(3/16) Image
Read 16 tweets
Oct 5
BREAKING: President Trump files motion to dismiss D.C. case

A short while ago in federal court in Washington, D.C., President Trump filed a motion to dismiss the case pending against him there for his alleged actions in the aftermath of the 2020 elections. The motion cites presidential immunity as a ground to dismiss the case in its entirety. This is a very big deal.

The motion persuasively argues that the D.C. case should be dismissed, and if past practice is any guide all proceedings could and should be stayed while this issue is litigated fully. Notably, this same reasoning should apply to the ongoing Georgia prosecution as well.

A number of legal commentators have anticipated this move, and in this thread I’m going to get into the weeds and review the core argument made—that presidential immunity is an absolute bar to the prosecution of President Trump for his alleged acts in office that underlie the federal prosecution in D.C.

1/6
(A) Presidential Immunity

At its heart, President Trump is arguing that presidents, even after their terms in office are over, are absolutely immune from criminal prosecutions arising out of their acts in office that fall within the “outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities as president, unless they have first been both impeached and convicted by the House of Representatives and Senate. And he’s arguing that all of the acts he is alleged to have committed fall within this absolute immunity.

This view, as the motion filed today makes clear, is deeply rooted in bedrock legal principles, in caselaw, in the Constitution, and in actual practice dating back centuries.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity from civil liability for acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibilities. In short, you cannot sue a former president personally because his official acts harmed you. This is unquestioned Supreme Court precedent, based on very serious, core separation of powers concerns. If a president were susceptible to civil suit for his official acts, the Court held that this would “raise unique risks to the functioning of government” in light of the “singular importance of the President’s duties.” The purpose of presidential immunity, the Fitzgerald Court’s view, is to prevent concerns about being sued clouding the president’s judgment and crippling his ability to act—presidents need to be able to discharge their duties to the best of their abilities without having to worry about being haled into court when their terms expire.

This well-established immunity doctrine has never been tested in the criminal context, for the simple reason that no president has been subjected to the sort of relentless prosecutions that President Trump has now been faced with, but the motion persuasively argues that the reasoning in Fitzgerald should still apply.

2/6
(B) Impeachment Clause

This view is also rooted in the actual text of the Constitution. The Impeachment Clause of Article I provides that, although impeachment proceedings do not themselves carry a punishment beyond removal from office, a party convicted after impeachment "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

By specifying that a president impeached and convicted could be subject to indictment, etc., the Constitution plainly and clearly implies that absent impeachment and conviction a president cannot be criminally prosecuted for his official acts.

Democrats impeached President Trump twice, and on both occasions the Senate acquitted him. Absent a conviction at an impeachment trial, presidential immunity applies to all of President Trump’s acts that fall within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and for these acts at least he cannot be prosecuted.

3/6
Read 6 tweets
Jun 15
I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:
(1) Interplay between the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act

A lot of my friends have spoken insightfully about the scope of the Presidential Records Act. I’d direct you to Mike Davis’s (@mrddmia) commentary on the subject, and also Michael Bekesha of… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
(2) Classification and National Defense Information

I want to reiterate this point because it’s really important:

Just because something is classified—even Top Secret, SCI, NOFORN, FISA, pick your alphabet soup—does not mean that it is National Defense Information (NDI) within… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Read 10 tweets
Jun 7
Today, @WesleyBell4STL announced that he was running for US Senate against @HawleyMO.

He's going to lose, and it's not going to be close.

Missourians are going to stand behind Josh Hawley.

But let's dig a little deeper on Wesley.

The receipts are telling.

1/8
Bell was first elected as St. Louis County prosecutor in 2018, unseating Bob McCulloch, whose offense in the eyes of the woke left seems to have been prosecuting violent criminals and supporting the police.

Bell was supported by some of the most radical leftists in America.

2/8
Bell took $57,500 from Real Justice PAC.

That PAC was funded largely by Cari Tuna, the radical leftist wife of Facebook founder Dustin Moskovitz. Tuna and Moskovitz have contributed tens of millions to radical left wing causes.

But let's dig deeper on Real Justice PAC.

3/8
Read 8 tweets
Jun 6
On this, the anniversary of D-Day, it's worth remembering one of the greatest stories of bravery from that day.

Ted Roosevelt Jr. landed with the first wave on Utah Beach on June 6, 1944, and was awarded the Medal of Honor for his courage.

This is his story:

1/19 Image
Theodore Roosevelt Jr. was as close as we get to royalty in America.

His father was the president. He was descended from the Schuylers. He went to Groton and Harvard. He had all the privilege in the world.

And when the US entered WWI, he volunteered immediately.

2/19
He was promoted so quickly that, by 1918, at age 30, he was commanding an entire regiment of the 1st Division as a Lt. Col.

He fought at Cantigny with distinction, and was wounded in a poison gas attack at Soissons in 1918.

He received the Distinguished Service Cross.

3/19 Image
Read 19 tweets
May 31
There is nothing antisemitic about opposing George Soros.

Today, @josh_hammer and I are launching Jews Against Soros (JewsAgainstSoros.com), a new grassroots coalition of Jews who oppose George Soros's radical left-wing agenda.

Here's what that agenda looks like:

1/8
Soros directly spent $128.5 million on left-wing campaigns in the 2022 midterm elections, making him the largest political donor in America.

The Democracy Alliance network that he co-founded publicly announced plans to spend $275 million to defeat President Trump in 2020.

2/8
Soros spent $40 million funding radical left-wing prosecutors like Kim Gardner, Alvin Bragg, Chesa Boudin, and Kim Foxx, who have refused to prosecute violent criminals, turning great American cities into crime warzones.

3/8
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(