OAN Staff Brooke Mallory
4:00 PM – Thursday, July 25, 2024
Hunter Biden’s attorneys made “false statements” in their attempts to get his criminal charges in California dropped, and a federal judge threatened to punish them for it.
Advertisement
In an order dated Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi requested that Hunter Biden’s legal team “show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for making false statements in the motion.”
Scarsi further stated that U.S. Attorney David Weiss did not file charges against the president’s son until after he was designated special counsel, despite what Biden’s lawyers had falsely claimed.
“These statements, however, are not true, and Mr. Biden’s counsel knows they are not true,” Scarsi wrote.
In a motion submitted to the court last week, Biden’s attorneys requested that the criminal charges against him in California be dropped. Biden is set to go on trial in the fall on charges of submitting fraudulent tax returns and evading taxes.
Additionally, they submitted a motion to a Delaware judge that requested the dismissal of Hunter’s criminal charges related to his federal firearms case, which culminated in his conviction last month.
The attorneys recently referenced U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s recent ruling in Florida, where she dismissed charges against former President Trump related to sensitive documents, on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith was not duly appointed. According to Cannon, Congress’s constitutionally granted role in the nomination process is “effectively usurped” by appointing him as special counsel.
In an effort to get Weiss’s allegations dropped, Biden’s legal team claimed that Weiss had years of experience as a U.S. attorney and was free to “bring whatever charges he believed were merited, but he brought no charges until after he received the Special Counsel title that he sought.”
Weiss filed the initial charges against Biden while serving as a U.S. attorney and before being named Special Counsel, according to Scarsi’s written statement in his ruling. Although Biden was anticipated to enter a guilty plea, Weiss indicted him and began getting ready for trial when the plea agreement fell through the previous year.
“The misstatements in the current motion are not trivial. Mr. Weiss’s institution of charges against Mr. Biden in his capacity as U.S. Attorney offers a meaningful distinction between this case and the nonbinding district court decision on which Mr. Biden bases his motion,” Scarsi wrote.
“But Mr. Biden’s motion does not engage with this distinction; instead, counsel avoids the issue by misrepresenting the history of the proceedings,” he continued, saying that the court “has little tolerance for lack of candor from counsel.”
Biden’s lawyers have seven days, according to Scarsi, to reply to the order. Failure to “file a timely and satisfactory response will result in sanctions.”
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Advertisements below
Be the first to comment