Hunter Biden almost got off scot-free — but everything changed when the IRS whistleblowers broke their silence: Report



Special counsel David Weiss was prepared to end the Hunter Biden investigation without prosecuting the first son, according to a new report. But everything changed when two brave IRS whistleblowers began speaking out.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that earlier this year, Weiss "appeared willing to forgo any prosecution of Mr. [Hunter] Biden at all, and his office came close to agreeing to end the investigation without requiring a guilty plea on any charges." The newspaper based that conclusion on more than 200 pages of correspondence between Weiss' office, Hunter Biden's lawyers, and interviews with people close to the negotiations.

But when two IRS whistleblowers went public this spring, alleging Weiss had been hamstrung by a politically motivated Justice Department, Weiss "suddenly demanded" that Hunter Biden be prosecuted, according to the Times.

What's more, both sides — Hunter Biden's attorneys and the IRS whistleblowers — agreed the whistleblowers altered the trajectory of Weiss' investigation. And Hunter Biden's lawyers want the whistleblowers to face criminal prosecution for speaking out.

From the Times:

Now, the IRS agents and their Republican allies say they believe the evidence they brought forward, at the precise time they did, played a role in influencing the outcome, a claim senior law enforcement officials dispute. While Mr. Biden’s legal team agrees that the IRS agents affected the deal, his lawyers have contended to the Justice Department that by disclosing details about the investigation to Congress, they broke the law and should be prosecuted.

"It appears that if it weren’t for the courageous actions of these whistle-blowers, who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, Hunter Biden would never have been charged at all," attorneys for one of the IRS agents told the Times.

The other significant revelation from the New York Times is that Hunter Biden's now-former lead attorney, Chris Clark, drafted the controversial — and, in the eyes of U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, possibly unconstitutional — pretrial diversion agreement that would have allowed Biden to avoid prosecution for a felony gun charge.

Documents reviewed by Politico and the New York Times painted a similar picture: Hunter Biden's attorneys pressured the Justice Department not to prosecute their client because his father is President Joe Biden, one of the most powerful men on Earth. Clark even allegedly warned prosecutors that prosecuting Hunter Biden would be "career suicide."

Additionally, Hunter Biden's attorneys threatened that if their client went to trial, they would call the president to be a witness for the defense, which Clark said would result in a "constitutional crisis."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Special counsel fires back at Hunter Biden's lawyers over latest argument as top attorney withdraws representation



Special counsel David Weiss fired back at Hunter Biden's lawyers on Tuesday, rebuking their assertion that Biden's pretrial diversion agreement is valid.

What is the background?

Last Friday, Weiss asked a federal court to vacate criminal charges against Hunter Biden because he and Biden's attorneys were "at an impasse" and "not in agreement on either a plea agreement or a diversion agreement." Weiss indicated he would file charges in other U.S. jurisdictions.

In response, Biden's attorneys accused federal prosecutors of having "renege[d]" on their deal.

They also argued in a court filing on Sunday that the controversial diversion agreement allowing the first son to avoid prosecution for a felony gun charge is valid because both parties — Biden and prosecutors — had signed it.

How did prosecutors respond?

In a court filing on Tuesday, prosecutors forcefully denied the attorneys' claims and the validity of the diversion agreement.

"The Defendant chose to plead not guilty at the hearing on July 26, 2023, and U.S. Probation declined to approve the proposed diversion agreement at that hearing," prosecutors explained. "Thus, neither proposed agreement entered into effect."

According to prosecutors, the diversion agreement was written to require the approval of the court before it took effect — one of U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika's chief concerns about it — and thus it never took effect because the court never signed it.

Indeed, Biden and prosecutors signed the diversion agreement, but Chief United States Probation Officer for the District of Delaware Margaret Bray did not.

"In sum, because Ms. Bray, acting in her capacity as the Chief United States Probation Officer, did not approve the now-withdrawn diversion agreement, it never went into effect and, therefore, none of its terms are binding on either party," prosecutors explained.

Anything else?

Meanwhile, one of Biden's top attorneys, Chris Clark, filed a motion on Tuesday to withdraw from representing the first son.

Citing Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, the court filing explained that Clark's withdrawal is necessary because the ethics rules state that "a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness."

"Based on recent developments, it appears that the negotiation and drafting of the plea agreement and diversion agreement will be contested, and Mr. Clark is a percipient witness to those issues," the filing said. "Under the 'witness-advocate' rule, it is inadvisable for Mr. Clark to continue as counsel in this case."

The development, then, foreshadows the potential of a showdown over the validity of the diversion agreement, and the increasing likelihood that Biden is heading to trial.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here

Hunter Biden's lawyers insist diversion agreement for felony gun charge is 'binding' despite plea deal collapse



Attorneys for Hunter Biden argued in a court filing on Sunday that a pretrial diversion agreement signed by federal prosecutors remains binding despite the first son's sweetheart plea deal falling apart.

In a court filing last Friday, now-special counsel David Weiss asked a federal judge to vacate charges filed against Biden in Delaware so that he could refile the charges in other jurisdictions. Weiss told the court that prosecutors and Biden's counsel were "at an impasse and are not in agreement on either a plea agreement or a diversion agreement."

But regarding the diversion agreement, that point is moot, Biden's lawyers argued.

Despite prosecutors' desire to start over, Biden's lawyers said their client "intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the Defendant, his counsel, and the United States" because, in their view, "the parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement."

To support their argument, Biden's attorneys cited the words of federal prosecutors, who repeatedly stated at the July 26 hearing with U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika that the diversion agreement is "binding," "in effect," a "contract[] between the Government and a defendant," and separate from the plea agreement.

A copy of the diversion agreement was posted to the court docket with signatures from Biden, his attorney Chris Clark, and federal prosecutor Leo Wise. The line for the probation officer, however, was left blank.

Because diversion agreements — technically agreements not to prosecute — are struck between prosecutors and a defendant, judicial approval is typically not required, the Washington Post explained. But this deal was complicated by the fact that prosecutors included key terms of the plea agreement in the diversion agreement, one of the central issues that Noreika raised last month.

It's not yet clear whether prosecutors agree that the diversion agreement remains binding and in effect. They have until noon on Tuesday to file a response.

If the diversion agreement is, in fact, binding, that means Biden will escape prosecution for a felony gun charge that the Justice Department typically prosecutes aggressively.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hunter Biden’s Attorneys Sought To ‘Infiltrate’ Set Of Upcoming Movie, Director Says

Davi first made the claim Friday

Liz Cheney's husband and Hunter Biden's attorney are partners at the same firm



The husband of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and an attorney for Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, are apparently partners at the same law firm, Latham & Watkins.

Cheney's husband, Philip Perry, has worked at the law firm since 2007. According to Perry's biography listed on the firm's website, he also worked as general counsel in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as well as the White House Office of Management and Budget during the George W. Bush administration, when Cheney's father, Dick Cheney, was vice president.

Perry specializes in law regarding biotechnology, federal government regulation, and homeland and national security, according to his biography.

Perry's fellow partner at Latham & Watkins, Chris Clark, has been representing Hunter Biden in some federal tax cases since December 2020. Clark "represents Robert Hunter Biden in a Grand Jury investigation regarding tax issues," his biography reads.

Clark's other notable clients include Elon Musk and Mark Cuban, according to his biography.

Another partner of the firm has also been hired by the Biden administration. In January 2021, Nicholas McQuaid was appointed to lead the criminal division at the Department of Justice, despite stern objections from Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

Liz Cheney has issued a statement denying any conflict of interest between her husband's work and Clark's association with the president's son.

"Latham & Watkins has 3000 lawyers and thousands of clients. Mr. Perry has no role at all in any matter involving Hunter Biden,” Cheney's spokesman said.

Latham & Watkins has long supported Democratic candidates, according to the New York Post, which referred to the firm as "a Democratic powerhouse." The firm as a whole donated $500,000 to Joe Biden's presidential campaign in 2020, and Clark donated nearly $4,000 to Biden himself.

Meanwhile, Liz Cheney's role as the sole representative from the state of Wyoming will soon come to an end. She was soundly defeated by Republican challenger Harriet Hageman in the state primary held on Tuesday. Cheney has not ruled out a possible presidential bid in 2024.