When last we left Hunter Biden and his legal team, they were busy being scorched by U.S. District Court Judge Mark Scarsi in the California criminal tax case pending against Biden (and currently set to go to trial in September). As I noted in our reporting on the matter:
But there’s an even bigger problem with the motion than that: Biden’s lawyers contended in the motion that Weiss only brought charges against Biden after he was appointed as Special Counsel. Which, as Scarsi very pointedly notes in his order, is false (emphasis mine):
The Court orders Mr. Biden’s counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for making false statements in the motion.
…
In support of his motion, Mr. Biden asserts, several times, that Special Counsel Weiss “brought no charges [against Mr. Biden] until after he received the Special Counsel title . . . .” (Mot. 5; accord id. at 6 (“Special Counsel Weiss . . . brought no chargesin this investigation with his U.S. Attorney position but, as Special Counsel, initiated legal proceedings on both sides of the country against Mr. Biden in Delaware and California . . . .id. at 7 (“Mr. Weiss . . . sought Special Counsel status before bringing any charges.”).) These statements, however, are not true, and Mr. Biden’s counsel knows they are not true.
BREAKING: Hunter Biden’s Legal Team Just Got Scorched by Judge for Making False Statements in CA Tax Case
Scarsi’s order permitted Hunter’s counsel (now being spearheaded by Mark Geragos, though Abbe Lowell is still on the team) to withdraw or amend their pleading but still required them to show cause as to why they included the false statements in the first place. I speculated at the time that Hunter’s legal team would plead some manner of miscommunication between the original team and the new one and offer effusive mea culpas for the offense.
I was wrong.
On Sunday, Hunter’s attorneys responded to the order in what reads to me as a rather snarky fashion, basically pointing the finger back at Judge Scarsi for misreading their intended meaning. Now, I admit I’m predisposed not to think all that highly of the First Son or his legal team based on prior performance and my own political leanings, so it’s possible I’m reading tone into their filing improperly. But I’ll share some key excerpts here and allow readers to draw their own conclusions:
On July 24, 2024, before the government filed its opposition to the Motion, the Court sua sponte issued an order for “Mr. Biden’s counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for making false statements in the motion.” D.E. 138 at 2. The allegedly false statements are the references in Mr. Biden’s motion to “charges” not being brought by Special Counsel Weiss prior to his appointment as Special Counsel.
…
Defense counsel, perhaps inartfully, intended this use of the word “charges” to refer to the current charges brought by indictment against Mr. Biden, not the lack of any charges at all. Here, context matters.
…
However, because an issue with the use of the word “charges” in the Motion has now been raised by the Court, the defense will amend its Motion to substitute the word “indictments” in the place of “charges” in the three sentences identified above on pages 5 through 7 of the Motion. Nevertheless, there is no basis on which to sanction Mr. Biden’s counsel for the use of that one word, which was not misleading in the context in which the two prior Informations had been repeatedly addressed with the Court.
…
Here, given the context that prior to the Motion being filed, the Court had been made aware by Mr. Biden’s counsel on numerous occasions that “charges” by way of information had been brought against Mr. Biden in Delaware, defense counsel clearly did not intend to make false statements or mislead the Court. Moreover, the imposition of sanctions against a criminal defendant’s counsel close to pre-trial and trial proceedings based on a single word would chill the vigorous defense of Mr. Biden and have the improper effect of dissuading defense counsel from raising appropriate issues. In addition, just the filing of the Court’s order to show cause accusing Mr. Biden’s counsel of making false statements to the tribunal has been widely publicized.
In a nutshell, Hunter’s attorneys are asking the court to pardon their “inartful” use of the term “charges” when they said that David Weiss “brought no charges” until after he was appointed Special Counsel and sought Special Counsel status “before bringing any charges.”
Counsel is correct that context matters. So does legal terminology. So does the manner in which counsel chooses to address the court, particularly when the court already appears to be displeased with counsel.
Will Scarsi accept the explanation and forego the imposition of sanctions? My prediction (yes, I know I got the prior one wrong, but I’ll give it another go) is that he will — primarily because courts generally aren’t too keen on sanctioning attorneys, and Scarsi’s original order already spanked Biden’s legal team fairly soundly. But I don’t think the lawyers have done their client any favors here in terms of improving this judge’s disposition toward them and any future arguments they present. Something tells me they won’t be receiving much benefit of the doubt going forward.
Related: So Soon? Hunter Biden Dismisses Suit Against Fox News Over ‘Revenge Porn’
Chastened: Biden Legal Team Withdraws Motion for New Trial
in Light of Spanking From Special Counsel
RHB – CA – Response – 7-28-24 by Susie Moore on Scribd
