Hack Democrat attorney Abbe Lowell has been making the rounds on the liberal cable news shows, spinning for his client Hunter Biden after Friday’s appointment of a special counsel. He blamed the failed plea agreement on “every MAGA right wing fanatic” (you’re welcome, Abbe) on CNN, and then had a completely insane appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday in which things he argued during one section of the interview were contradicted by things he said in another.
He also basically called the U.S. Attorneys involved in drafting the plea agreement and the diversion agreement incompetent, and I can’t really argue with that.
So if you were in court or read about what happened on July the 26th, you have to ask yourself, as you just asked me, “why?” And there are only a few possibilities. Remember, it were the prosecutors who came forward and asked if there was a resolution possible. They’re in charge of figuring out the form, the document, and the language. They did that. And so the possibilities are only, one, they wrote something and weren’t clear what they meant. Two, they knew what they meant, and misstated it to counsel. Or third, they changed their view as they were standing in court in Delaware. So to answer that question, I’ll ask you a question. And everybody else who’s paying attention, what group of experienced defense lawyers would allow their client to plead guilty to a misdemeanor on a Monday, keeping in mind that they knew that there could be a felony charge on a Wednesday? That wouldn’t happen.
Well, incompetent or afraid of facing the music once everyone had heard from the IRS whistleblowers.
How can there be such a fundamental misunderstanding, Lowell was asked?
It did come down to fundamentally that, and then a couple of issues as to what a judge’s role could be in the proceedings that the prosecutors wrote the documents for. And how could it happen? I gave you the three possibilities. They wrote the language, they insisted on that language, they insisted on two different documents.
And that language would be broad immunity? Yes, despite what many pundits said in the days after the plea agreement failure, Biden’s attorneys did believe it was extremely broad immunity.
With our understanding that it would be broad immunity. And the language, as the judge pointed out, is a very broad phrase. It says encompassing all the facts that were in the document that sets out the transactions.
Lowell, ever the hack, says that there is no way that FARA charges could still be contemplated, because there was a complete and thorough investigation. He then suggests that if the Special Counsel decides something different it’s because of politics.
But you asked me whether or not that has been part of the investigation and after five years and what we know happened in the grand jury, of course that had to be part of what the prosecutor has already looked at, as well as every other false allegation made by the right wing media and others, whether it’s corruption or FARA, or money laundering. That was part of what this prosecutor’s office had to have been looking over for five years. I can assure you that five years concluded that the only two charges that made sense were two misdemeanors for failing to file like millions of Americans do, and a diverted gun charge for the 11 days that Hunter possessed a gun. Everything else had been thoroughly looked at. So is that possible that they’re going to revisit it? Let me answer it one way. If the now Special Counsel decides not to go by the deal, then it will mean that he or they decided that something other than the facts and the law are coming into play.
As predicted, Lowell claims that the Diversion Agreement, with that broad immunity deal, has the signatures for it to be binding.
So there are two different agreements, as you point out. And on July 26, what was very clear is that the prosecution presented the diversion agreement, which they signed, which we signed, and as an agreement of which they have described it as being a standalone, independent bilateral agreement with two signatures on it. That agreement is different than the plea. The plea has not fallen, the plea did not go forward. The diversion agreement is already filed in court and it has the signatures necessary for it to be binding.
However, the diversion agreement as filed does not have the Probation Office signature. I’m not sure if that has to be done in order for the agreement to be in effect, but we’ll likely be finding that out in the coming days. Lowell continues, claiming that all the diversion agreement needed to be was a bilateral agreement between the parties in order for it to be binding.
What I can say is that as recently as in the last week or two, they made a filing at court, they being the prosecutors, which called it a bilateral agreement between the parties. And if it’s a bilateral agreement between the parties. It’s an agreement that’s in effect.
However, in the DOJ’s filing on August 11, in which they sought to vacate the court’s briefing order, they said that both the diversion agreement and the plea agreement were dead.
That section reads:
The Court’s briefing order is premised on the idea that the parties intend to continue towards a guilty plea in Criminal Action No. 23-mj-00274 and diversion in Criminal Action No. 23-cr-00061. But that is no longer the case. Following additional negotiations after the hearing held on July 26, 2023, the parties are at an impasse and are not in agreement on either a plea agreement or a diversion agreement. Therefore, the Government believes the Court’s briefing order should be vacated.
Now, none of the charges have been formally dropped as of this moment. The DOJ made the motion, and Judge Noreika ordered Hunter Biden’s attorneys to respond to that motion by noon Monday, August 14. It looks like they’ll argue that the diversion agreement is already in place and that Hunter is safe, which any decent criminal defense lawyer would do. But that opens up a whole can of worms procedurally, so my prediction is that it’s about to get extremely spicy in the legal world.