Posts

Judge Mark Scarsi’s Umbrage: Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night

/43 Comments/in , , /by

I think that Hunter Biden’s two prosecutions are gone. After he submitted notice of a pardon and David Weiss’ prosecutors complained, Judge Maryellen Noreika issued an order terminating all proceedings.

ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed the parties’ submissions (D.I. 272, 274, 276 ) and in the absence of binding precedent and whereas pursuant to the Executive Grant of Clemency signed by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on December 1, 2024, Defendant Robert Hunter Biden has been pardoned for, inter alia, the offenses for which a jury rendered a verdict in this case (D.I. 275 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are hereby terminated. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/3/2024.

Judge Mark Scarsi … did something else. He issued a blistering opinion suggesting Hunter’s pardon was partly defective (because the President issued the pardon through the day he issued it, suggesting it attempted to grant four hours of prospective immunity), but that he would terminate the case once someone from the Executive Branch gave him a certified copy of the pardon. Mostly, though, Scarsi accused President Biden of impugning him personally and rewriting history by claiming that Hunter was prosecuted only because he was Joe’s son.

According to the President, “[n]o reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cases can reach any other conclusion than [Mr. Biden] was singled out only because he is [the President’s] son.” But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President. (Order on Mots. to Dismiss 32–55); Mem. Opinion 6–19, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN (D. Del. Apr. 12, 2024), ECF No. 99. And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges. In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people.

In short, a press release is not a pardon. The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.

This is why I would have preferred Biden not have pardoned his son — because I wanted these verdicts, including Scarsi and Noreika’s rulings that Hunter wasn’t selectively or vindictively prosecuted, to be appealed to judges less intemperate than Scarsi.

Not least because there are several problems with Scarsi’s rant.

First, Scarsi, Weiss’ prosecutors, and Noreika (in her original opinion) are all engaged in navel-gazing. All argued, to one degree or another, that this prosecution could not be political because Biden and his selected Attorney General oversaw it. There were enormous problems with that argument: the degree to which Biden’s adversary was permitted to elicit threats against the prosecutorial team, the unwise retention of David Weiss for a second term, the role that Alexander Smirnov’s alleged attempt to criminally frame Joe Biden played in David Weiss’ decision to first obtain Special Counsel status and then ratchet up charges against Joe Biden’s son. But ultimately, prosecutors argued and judges adopted the claim that because Joe Biden was in charge, the prosecution could not have been political.

But since all that went down, John Roberts rewrote history and vested all the authority over prosecutions in the executive power of the President.

Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1

[snip]

The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials.

Under Roberts’ logic, if the President, exercising his executive authority at its zenith, deems this prosecution political, then it was.

Moreover, Scarsi wildly misrepresents the nature of Biden’s comment. The legal opinions that Scarsi cites address whether Hunter’s case met the very narrow legal definitions of selective or vindictive prosecution, as he himself laid out.

Proving selective prosecution “is particularly demanding.” Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 489 (1999). Because “[a] selectiveprosecution claim asks a court to exercise judicial power over a special province of the Executive,” “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that [prosecutors] have properly discharged their official duties.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[snip]

“Particularly when a vindictiveness claim pertains to pretrial charging decisions, the Supreme Court urges deference to the prosecutor. Deference is appropriate for pretrial charging decisions because, ‘in the course of preparing a case for trial, the prosecutor may uncover additional information that suggests a basis for further prosecution.’” United States v. Brown, 875 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted) (quoting Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 381). “[J]ust as a prosecutor may forgo legitimate charges already brought in an effort to save the time and expense of trial, a prosecutor may file additional charges if an initial expectation that a defendant would plead guilty to lesser charges proves unfounded.” Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 380. Thus, “in the context of pretrial plea negotiations vindictiveness will not be presumed simply from the fact that a more severe charge followed on, or even resulted from, the defendant’s exercise of a right.” Gamez-Orduno, 235 F.3d at 462 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Deference to the prosecutorial decision to bring charges, notwithstanding significant pretrial negotiations between the parties to avoid them, is warranted.

Of course, once you adopt Roberts’ logic, then if the President overrides the original prosecutorial judgment of prosecutors, then his view must hold sway. If President Biden says the decisions were unfair, then they were.

Sure. That’s wildly problematic. Welcome to Roberts’ Calvinball.

But as Barb McQuade laid out, whether a prosecutorial decision meets the very narrow definition of selective or vindictive prosecution and whether a prosecution was an unwise exercise of prosecutorial discretion are two different things.

I disagree with McQuade about whether there was evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution. After all, as I noted, Scarsi misrepresented what the record on the comparator of Roger Stone said. Again, that’s why I wanted these cases to be appealed.

But it is also the case that a whole series of events related to this prosecution — Trump’s demand for such an investigation from both Volodymyr Zelenskyy and publicly, DOJ’s laundering of dirt Trump’s personal lawyer obtained, including from a known Russian agent, into this case, efforts by Trump’s debate guest to introduce misleading evidence into this investigation, the way a key witness in the gun case leaked information to affect the 2020 election, and Bill Barr’s subsequent pressure for a prosecution — that were excluded from both judges’ rulings altogether. Both judges simply ignored that David Weiss reneged on his assurances to Hunter’s team that there was no ongoing investigation before he entered into the deal, a detail that was central to any vindictive prosecution analysis. Neither judge addressed how Alexander Smirnov’s alleged attempt to criminally frame Biden himself played into the prosecutorial decisions (I am not sure that was formally before Scarsi, though it was before Noreika).

So while it is a fact that two judges credited the arguments made by prosecutors whose claims Biden has now overridden on the selective and vindictive prosecution issue, it is also a fact that a great deal of evidence of politicization was excluded from all consideration. Biden’s judgment incorporated a great deal of things specifically and surgically excluded from the selective and vindictive prosecution analysis.

Finally, though, there are the ways that Scarsi himself rewrote history to get to his selective and vindictive prosecution decision.

As I laid out here, Scarsi made much of errors that Abbe Lowell made in his selective and vindictive prosecution argument. For example, after pointing out that Lowell misquoted coverage of David Weiss’ comments about threats elicited by political pressure on the case, Scarsi simply ignored the role of threats on prosecutorial decisions, because those “significant threats” were not publicly described as death threats. Importantly, as Noreika did in her opinion, after (correctly) catching Lowell misstating the timeline, Scarsi himself fiddled with the timeline so as to permit himself only to look at the prosecutorial decision in December 2023, not the decision to renege on the plea agreement in June and July 2023.

Scarsi’s treatment of this passage from Hunter’s motion deserves closer consideration:

Mr. Biden agreed to plead guilty to the tax misdemeanors, but when the plea deal was made public, the political backlash was forceful and immediate. Even before the Delaware court considered the plea deal on July 26, 2023, extremist Republicans were denouncing it as a “sweetheart deal,” accusing DOJ of misconduct, and using the excuse to interfere with the investigation.13 [2] Leaders of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Accountability, and Ways and Means Committees (“HJC,” “HOAC,” and “HWMC,” respectively) opened a joint investigation, and on June 23, HWMC Republicans publicly released closed-door testimony from the whistleblowers, who, in the words of Chairman Smith, “describe how the Biden Justice Department intervened and overstepped in a campaign to protect the son of Joe Biden by delaying, divulging and denying an ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.”14 Then, one day before Mr. Biden’s plea hearing, Mr. Smith tried to intervene [4] to file an amicus brief “in Aid of Plea Hearing,” in which he asked the court to “consider” the whistleblower testimony.15

13 Phillip Bailey, ‘Slap On The Wrist’: Donald Trump, Congressional Republicans Call Out Hunter Biden Plea Deal, USA Today (June 20, 2023), https://www.usatoday.com/.

14 Farnoush Amiri, GOP Releases Testimony Alleging DOJ Interference In Hunter Biden Tax Case, PBS (June 23, 2023), https://www.pbs.org/.

15 United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj-00274-MN (D. Del. 2023), DE 7. [brackets mine]

Here’s how Scarsi treats this passage laying out what happened between the publication of the plea and the failed plea hearing:

The putative [sic] plea deal became public in June 2023. Several members of the United States Congress publicly expressed their disapproval on social media. The Republican National Committee stated, “It is clear that Joe Biden’s Department of Justice is offering Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal.” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media platform, “The corrupt Biden DOJ just cleared up hundreds of years of criminal liability by giving Hunter Biden a mere ‘traffic ticket.’” Phillip M. Bailey, ‘Slap on the wrist’: Donald Trump, congressional Republicans call out Hunter Biden plea deal, USA Today (June 20, 2023, 11:17 a.m.), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/20/donald-trump-republicans-react-hunter-biden-plea-deal/ 70337635007/ [https://perma.cc/TSN9-UHLH]. 28 On June 23, 2023, the Ways and Means Committee of the United States House of Representatives voted to publicly disclose congressional testimony from the IRS agents who worked on the tax investigation. Jason Smith, chair of the Ways and Means Committee, told reporters that the agents were “[w]histleblowers [who] describe how the Biden Justice Department intervened and overstepped in a campaign to protect the son of Joe Biden by delaying, divulging and denying an ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.” Farnoush Amiri, GOP releases testimony alleging DOJ interference in Hunter Biden tax case, PBS NewsHour (June 23, 2023, 3:58 p.m.), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-releases-testimony-alleging-dojinterference-in-hunter-biden-tax-case.29 One day before the plea hearing in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Mr. Smith moved to file an amicus curiae brief imploring the court to consider the IRS agents’ testimony and related materials in accepting or rejecting the plea agreement. Mem. of Law in Support of Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Br., United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-mj-00274-MN (D. Del. July 25, 2023), ECF No. 7-2; Amicus Curiae Br., United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-mj-00274-MN (D. Del. July 25, 2023), ECF No. 7-3.30

28 This source does not stand for the proposition that “extremist Republicans were [1] . . . using the excuse to interfere with the investigation.” (Selective Prosecution Mot. 5–6.) Of Mr. Weiss, Mr. Trump also wrote: “He gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence. . . . Maybe the judge presiding will have the courage and intellect to break up this cesspool of crime. The collusion and corruption is beyond description. TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE!” Ryan Bort, Trump Blasts Prosecutor He Appointed for Not Giving Hunter Biden ‘Death Sentence,’ Rolling Stone (July 11, 2023), https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-suggests-hunter-bidendeath penalty-1234786435/ [https://perma.cc/UH6N-838R].

29 This source does not stand for the proposition that several leaders of house committees “opened a joint investigation.” (Selective Prosecution Mot. 6.) [3]

30 The docket does not show that the Delaware district court resolved the motion, and the Court is uncertain whether the court considered Mr. Smith’s brief. [brackets mine]

First, Scarsi uses an ellipsis, marked at [1], to suggest the only reason Lowell cited the USA Today story was to support the claim that Republicans moved to intervene in the investigation, when the sentence in question includes three clauses, two of which the story does support. The sentence immediately following that three-clause sentence [2] makes a claim — OGR, HWAM, and HJC forming a joint committee, that substantiates that claim. Scarsi’s complaint at [3] is not that the cited article does not include Jason Smith’s quotation; rather, it’s that Lowell has not pointed to a source for the formation of a joint investigation (a later-cited source that Scarsi never mentions does include it). Meanwhile, Scarsi applies a measure — whether Judge Noreika considered Smith’s amicus, not whether he tried to file it — that Lowell doesn’t make (and which is irrelevant to a vindictive prosecution motion, because Noreika is not the prosecutor); Smith did succeed in getting the amicus unsealed, including the exhibits that Hunter claimed include grand jury materials. Whether or not Judge Noreika considered the content of the amicus, that Smith filed it is undeniable proof that Smith tried to intervene, which is all Hunter alleged he did.

Meanwhile, Scarsi relegates Trump’s Social Media threats — which Scarsi later corrects Lowell by noting that they came during precisely this period — to a footnote.

Here’s one thing I find most interesting. Scarsi’s two most valid complaints about Lowell’s filing are that, in one part of his timeline but not another, he misrepresented Trump’s pressure as happening after the plea failed, and that Lowell claimed that Weiss testified he had gotten death threats when instead the cited source (and the Weiss transcript I assume Lowell does not have) instead say that Weiss feared for his family. He acknowledges both those things: Trump attacked Weiss, and Weiss got threats that led him to worry for the safety of his family.

But he never considers Weiss’ fear for his family’s safety in his consideration of what happened between June and July. He never considers whether those threats had a prejudicial [e]ffect on Hunter Biden.

And aside from that correction regarding the safety comment, nor does Scarsi consider the most direct aspect of Congress’ intervention in the case — that Congress demanded Weiss testify, and he did so just weeks before he filed the charges actually before Scarsi.

In other words, Scarsi accuses Lowell of making a post hoc argument, claiming that he is simply pointing to prior events to explain Weiss’ subsequent actions. Except he ignores the impact of the two most direct allegations of influence.

And in Scarsi’s own fiddling with the timeline, he found a way to ignore how Donald Trump’s threats and direct intervention by Congress may have infected the decision to renege on the plea deal, and instead focused solely on the later decision to indict.

We’re in a post-truth world and Scarsi’s intemperate rant will certainly get the attention of those looking for Trump judges to promote.

But the fact of the matter is that Scarsi did precisely what he accuses the President of, rewriting the history of the Hunter Biden prosecution.

Share this entry

How Jeff Bezos Smothered Pete Hegseth News because Hunter Biden Was Pardoned of Already Declined Charges

/53 Comments/in , , /by

When I went to bed last night, the WaPo was feeding me the following stories at the top of its digital front page.

WaPo has since added a story about Biden’s attempt to surge weapons to Ukraine before Trump cuts them off.

There was not and is not any story dedicated to Kash Patel’s promises to target Trump’s enemies at FBI — a story that not only is more urgent than any of the seven Hunter Biden pardon stories, but is fundamentally tied to the how and why of the Hunter Biden pardon.

There was not and is not any story on Jane Mayer’s report about how Pete Hegseth,

was forced to step down by both of the two nonprofit advocacy groups that he ran—Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America—in the face of serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct.

Even as Hegseth made visits with the Senators whose vote he would need to be confirmed (definitely watch this video), the rag owned by defense contractor Jeff Bezos chose to litter its front page with seven stories and columns about Hunter Biden’s pardon rather than report out that Hegseth has a history of failing to manage the budgets of even just two medium-sized non-profits.

And it’s not just that Bezos’ rag buried far more urgent news about Trump’s nominees.

It’s that (with the exception of this column explaining the risks and difficulty of seizing weapons from addicts) the Hunter Biden stories were not all that useful.

Will Lewis has again chosen to platform Matt Viser’s dick pic sniffing about Joe Biden, this time trying to drive the controversy about the pardon; as far as I’m aware, Viser still has not disclosed to WaPo’s readers that an error in his own reporting caused a false scandal about Hunter’s art sales.

Viser’s 1800-word post includes 22 words that address, with no specifics, Pam Bondi and Kash Patel’s promise to persecute Trump’s enemies: “His picks for attorney general, Pam Bondi, and for FBI director, Kash Patel, have urged retribution against Trump’s political adversaries and critics.” It does, however, float an inaccurate quote also included in this Aaron Blake piece (as well as these Betsy Woodruff and Ken Vogel stories), claiming that Hunter’s pardon is broader than any since Nixon’s pardon.

Former Pardon Attorney Margaret Love hates this pardon and she’s not afraid to mislead reporters to criticize it, as when she told Woodruff that Nixon was the only precedent.

“I have never seen language like this in a pardon document that purports to pardon offenses that have not apparently even been charged, with the exception of the Nixon pardon,” said Margaret Love, who served from 1990 to 1997 as the U.S. pardon attorney, a Justice Department position devoted to assisting the president on clemency issues.

“Even the broadest Trump pardons were specific as to what was being pardoned,” Love added.

Love’s claim conflicts with what she herself laid out to Politico, the very same outlet, when Mike Flynn was pardoned four years ago.

“Pardons are typically directed at specific convictions or at a minimum at specific charges,” said Margaret Love, former pardon attorney for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who now leads the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. “I can think of only one other pardon as broad as this one, extending as it does to conduct that has not yet been charged, and that is the one that President Ford granted to Richard Nixon.”

“In fact, you might say that this pardon is even broader than the Nixon pardon, which was strictly cabined by his time as president,“ Love said. “In contrast, the pardon granted to Flynn appears to extend to conduct that took place prior to Trump‘s election to the presidency, and to bear no relationship to his service to the president, before or after the election.“ [my emphasis]

And I believe even then, Love misstated the intended scope of Flynn’s pardon.

Like Hunter’s pardon, Flynn’s pardon excused the crimes included in his charging documents (false statements, including false statements about being an unregistered agent of Turkey). While Hunter’s pardon specifically invoked the conduct in his Delaware and Los Angeles dockets, Flynn’s pardon excused conduct reviewed in two jurisdictions, DC and EDVA. Like Hunter’s pardon, which would cover the false statements referral from Congress, Flynn’s pardon would have covered the contradictory sworn statements he made as he tried to renege on his plea deal. But Flynn’s pardon also covered,

any and all possible offenses arising out of facts and circumstances known to, identified by, or in any manner related to the investigation of the Special Counsel,

This pardon attempted to excuse any crime based on a fact that once lived in Robert Mueller’s brain or case files.

As I laid out here, that certainly would have covered referrals from Mueller elsewhere (including to DOD), it might have attempted to pardon crimes in process, if (for example) Flynn’s relationship with Russia developed into something more in the future. Flynn’s pardon, unlike Hunter’s didn’t have an end date, and as a result, if Congress wants to continue to harass Hunter about stuff he just accepted a pardon for, he’ll have less protection than Trump intended Flynn to have.

And while Republicans might argue that Hunter’s allegedly false claim to Congress — regarding how he cut Tony Bobulinski out of a deal with CEFC to protect his family’s name — served to protect his father, even the most feverish Republican fantasies would amount to three Biden men profiting from a Chinese company after Biden left the Obama Administration and before he decided to run again. Flynn’s conflicting claims about whether “The Boss is aware” of his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, including regarding undermining sanctions, served to protect Trump’s actions as incoming President. (Another thing WaPo decided was less important than seven pieces about Hunter’s pardon was that Chinese national Justin Sun, who has been charged with fraud by the SEC, just sent Donald Trump $18 million.) That is, you can measure the pardon in terms of familial closeness to the President granting it (none of these stories mention Charles Kushner, much less his nomination to be Ambassador to France); you can also measure the pardon in terms of the silence or lies about the guy giving the pardon it buys. And any one of about ten pardons from Trump, including the Flynn one, were far more corrupt by that measure.

But here’s the other reason why Blake’s piece, one of the seven pieces littering the front page instead of stories about Kash Patel or Hegseth’s unfitness, is not useful. Here’s how Blake introduces the scope of Hunter’s pardon.

Biden didn’t just pardon his son for his convictions on tax and gun charges, but for any “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.”

That’s a nearly 11-year period during which any federal crime Hunter Biden might have committed — and there are none we are aware of beyond what has already been adjudicated — can’t be prosecuted. It notably covers when he was appointed to the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma in 2014 all the way through Sunday, well after the crimes for which he was prosecuted.

Hunter Biden hasn’t been charged for his activities with regard to Burisma or anything beyond his convictions, and nothing in the public record suggests criminal charges could be around the bend. Congressional Republicans have probed the Burisma matter and Hunter Biden extensively and could seemingly have uncovered chargeable crimes if they existed, but haven’t done so.

Blake glosses over a great deal with his reference to things that have “already been adjudicated,” and in doing so, ignores the problem. Yes, both prosecutors and Republicans in Congress looked long and hard for something to hang a Burisma charge onto; yes, none of them found it. But — here’s the important bit — they still want to pursue one anyway.

The investigation into Hunter Biden started six years ago, based off a Suspicious Activity Report tied to a payment to a sex worker. Investigators tried to turn that into a criminal investigation based on the same Burisma focus that Rudy Giuliani was chasing; in fact, investigators first got data from Apple on the day Trump released the Perfect Phone Call, a transcript that may or may not have expunged a specific reference to Burisma. According to Joseph Ziegler, his supervisor at the time documented the problem of chasing a tax investigation that tracked Trump’s public demands for dirt on the Bidens related to Burisma.

You can actually trace how investigators cycled through one or another potential FARA violation — Burisma, Romania, CEFC — each time, with even the disgruntled IRS agents conceding they couldn’t substantiate those FARA cases (not least because Hunter was pretty diligent about not doing influence peddling himself, at bringing in others to do any of that kind of lobbying). Tips from Gal Luft — awaiting extradition on foreign agent charges — and Alexander Smirnov — awaiting trial on false statements — were key elements of that investigation.

But we know that in the precise period when someone was leaking to try to pressure prosecutors to bring certain charges, David Weiss had decided not to charge 2014 and 2015. Here’s how Gary Shapley wrote up the October 7, 2022 meeting that set him off.

In 2022, David Weiss told Shapley he would not charge 2014 and 2015, which is one thing that led Shapley to start reaching out to Congress to complain.

Prosecutors included more detail in Hunter’s tax indictment.

a. The Defendant timely filed, after requesting an extension, his 2014 individual income tax return on IRS Form 1040 on October 9, 2015. The Defendant reported owing $239,076 in taxes, and having already paid $246,996 to the IRS, the Defendant claimed he was entitled to a refund of $7,920. The Defendant did not report his income from Burisma on his 2014 Form 1040. All the money the Defendant received from Burisma in 2014 went to a company, hereafter “ABC”, and was deposited into its bank account. ABC and its bank account were owned and controlled by a business partner of the Defendant’s, Business Associate 5. Business Associate 5 was also a member of Burisma’s Board of Directors. The Defendant received transfers of funds from the ABC bank account and funds from the ABC bank account were used to make investments on the Defendant’s behalf. Because he owned ABC, Business Associate 5 paid taxes on income that he and the Defendant received from Burisma. Starting in November 2015, the Defendant directed his Burisma Board fees to an Owasco, PC bank account that he controlled.

One reason Hunter wasn’t charged for 2014 and 2015 is because Devon Archer was paying taxes in that period.

But the point is (as reflected in Blake’s note this was all adjudicated), a prosecutor made that decision. And Republicans in Congress and, specifically, Kash Patel, squealed about the injustice of not charging Hunter because the evidence didn’t merit charges.

This decision and the backlash with those dissatisfied by it dictates the lengthy period of Hunter’s pardon. Not just because they want to charge Burisma whether or not there’s evidence of a crime. But because the five year statute of limitations for FARA and the six year SOL on tax crimes, to charge anything related to Burisma, they’d have to apply crimes — like Espionage or certain kinds of Wire Fraud — that have ten year statutes of limitation.

Kash Patel and Republicans in Congress have already said they want to charge Hunter Biden regardless of whether there’s evidence to do so. When David Weiss first offered a plea deal, Trump posted that Hunter should instead have gotten a death sentence.

These people have made it clear they want to prosecute Hunter regardless of what the evidence supports. They have said that over and over. That’s what dictates the pardon, not any corruption by Biden. And to flip that on its head — to flip Trump and Kash Patel’s demand for prosecutions regardless of evidence — on its head is to cooperate in Trump’s assault on rule of law.

This is a point reflected by experts quoted in Vogel’s piece (and expanded by Kim Wehle in her own post).

Mr. Morison, who worked for years in the Office of the Pardon Attorney before going into private practice, added that the Bidens may have seen risk in crafting the pardon grant more narrowly.

“I assume that Hunter’s lawyers were worried that an especially vindictive Trump DOJ would have looked for something to charge him with if they were too specific, so they asked for a blanket pardon, subject only to a fairly broad date range,” he wrote in an email.

Kimberly Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, predicted that if Mr. Trump’s Justice Department were to charge Hunter Biden, he would raise the pardon in a motion to dismiss the case.

Ms. Wehle, the author of a recent book detailing how the lack of constraints on presidential clemency powers invite abuse, said in an email that it was Mr. Trump — not President Biden — who initiated “the norm-violating behavior” by pledging to use the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies.

“This is not a corrupt pardon,” she said in an email. “It’s about taking care of a family member knowing what Trump will do otherwise.”

The reason you have to pardon broadly is because Trump has demanded an outcome divorced from evidence. And to get to his desired outcome, he would have to do something expansive, something that could not be foreseen by the scope of the existing investigation that (as Blake notes) has already been adjudicated.

You can tell this story about how broad the pardon is — structured very similarly to the Mike Flynn one.

But if you leave out the story of how this investigation from the start paralleled Trump’s extra-legal effort to gin up dirt on Joe Biden’s son, if you leave out the fact that even in his first term, Trump’s DOJ solicited information from at least one Russian spy and a Chinese agent to pursue dirt on Hunter Biden, then you are flipping the matter of justice on its head. That’s what Trump did already, in his desperation to find something to hang on Hunter Biden. And particularly given his picks of Bondi and Patel (the latter of whom played a role in extorting a foreign country for such dirt, too), there’s no telling what Trump will do in a second term.

That’s what dictates the terms of this pardon. A prosecutor issued a declination for charges related to 2014 and 2015, and almost the entire Republican party said, we’re going to find something anyway. And if you hide that detail, you’re burying the most crucial information, just like you’re burying detrimental information about Hegseth and Patel below a seventh post on Hunter Biden.

This is what a captive oligarch press looks like: Burying detrimental information on the guy who might oversee Jeff Bezos’ defense contracts, while hiding the reasons why the Hunter Biden pardon looks like it does.

Share this entry

America Just Failed the Test of Responding to Trump’s Politicized Prosecutions

/62 Comments/in , /by

Let’s imagine that, two years from now, Pam Bondi rolls out charges against some onetime adversary of Donald Trump. To the extent that journalists will still be employed and reading court filings, to the extent that prosecutors under Emil Bove (who at SDNY oversaw a team sanctioned for discovery violations) comply with discovery requirements, the adversary in question learns the following about his prosecution:

  • The case started when an investigator started looking into a transnational trafficking network
  • The investigator discovered that the prominent adversary had paid one of the sex workers trafficked in the network
  • Rather than pursuing the traffickers, the investigator used the payment for sex as cause to open an investigation
  • Of course, no one is going to charge a John … so the investigator starts pulling divorce records and four year old tax returns to try to move from that payment for sex work to something that can be charged
  • Then the investigator started incorporating oppo research from Peter Schweizer into his investigation
  • Kash Patel’s FBI set up protected ways to accept tips from Trump supporters who’ve doctored documents to create a crime
  • Trump called up Bondi and told her to take more aggressive steps
  • Trump called up foreign leaders asking for help on this prosecution
  • Bondi then set up a way to launder that information from foreign sources, including known spies, into the investigation of the adversary
  • Patel’s FBI asked a partisan informant to fabricate claims against the adversary
  • Trump publicly called out prosecutors — resulting in them and their children being followed — because they had not yet charged his adversary
  • Ultimately, the adversary got charged on 5-year old dirt, and only then, after charging, did prosecutors quickly do the investigative work to win the case at trial

Now, as I’ve described it, you surely imagine you’d say, wow, that looks like a thoroughly corrupt prosecution, a clear case of Trump using DOJ to punish his adversaries.

Right?

It’s not so much that investigators didn’t, after the fact, find a crime to charge. They did. If you investigate most high profile people long enough, you’ll find something to charge, particularly if multiple people come to DOJ with doctored evidence to help create that crime.

It’s that someone found the name of an adversary in the digital records of crimes that were more important to investigate, and instead of pursuing that crime, used the electronic record as an excuse to keep looking until they found some evidence of a crime against Trump’s adversary.

Everyone would recognize that’s what happened, right?

Of course not. Of course no one would recognize that that was a political prosecution.

We need no further proof than the fact that none of those very same details showed up in any of the coverage of the Hunter Biden investigation. Not now that he has been pardoned. Not when all these details came out last year. Not in any of the retrospectives of the times Trump demanded investigations on his adversaries.

What will happen instead is that a bunch of self-important DC scribes will chase the most salacious allegations, provide endless headlines about sex workers and wild parties. The DC scribes will ignore every detail about the legal investigation — every one!! — and instead use the prosecution as an opportunity to sell political scandal. And also, they will point to their Tiger Beat coverage as proof, they say, they are not politically biased.

Rather than diligently rooting out the obviously politicized prosecution, the press will be complicit in it.

And rather than deciding that the adversary was the target of an obviously politicized prosecution, American public opinion would instead decide that the adversary was icky, and because he is icky, his statements about Trump cannot be credited.

That is what political prosecutions look like. That is, of course, precisely what the Hunter Biden prosecution was (ignoring the assurances from prosecutors who say no one with the fact set Hunter faced would be charged). Every single bullet has an analogue in the Hunter Biden case. That obviously political prosecution is what happened.

Once the GOP got the House majority, they did nothing else but platform these claims, which a different set of self-important scribes treated as an interesting process story, not an obvious case of a great abuse of government power.

And now that Biden has pardoned his son, the very same self important scribes who ignored all the signs this was a political prosecution, are giving non-stop coverage to a pardon that — unlike those of Trump’s Coffee Boy, National Security Adviser, campaign manager, personal lawyer, and rat-fucker — are not about self-protection, most with no mention of all the evidence Trump ordered up this prosecution to target Joe Biden.

The question is, what are we going to do about this, now that we have rock solid proof the press establishment is not only incapable, but wildly uninterested, in rooting out this kind of politicized prosecution — at least not when they can instead sell scandal?

In the face of seeing Pam Bondi and Kash Patel preparing to redouble efforts to find politicized prosecutions against Donald Trump’s adversaries, Joe Biden chose to end the process, with his son, at least.

I’m actually on the record opposing the pardon — but not for the reasons everyone else is. I don’t think pardoning Hunter in this circumstance is corrupt. I take Biden at his word that he changed his mind about pardoning Hunter. I’m far more interested in Trump admitting he was lying about his plans to implement Project 2025 than that Biden reneged on assurances no one much believed anyway.

I oppose the pardon because it eliminates Hunter’s standing to appeal and with those appeals to begin telling the story that the media chose to ignore. I oppose the pardon because if we don’t start laying out how Trump already politicized DOJ while there’s a good base of legitimate judges in place, it’ll be far too late.

And don’t get me wrong. I think Biden fucked this one up. Not just for saying he wouldn’t pardon Hunter, but for not taking action far earlier — like firing David Weiss the day he was inaugurated, citing Trump’s first impeachment, or pardoning Hunter and firing Weiss on November 6 — to do something about this. I think Merrick Garland shouldn’t have given Weiss himself SCO status (not least, because Weiss continues to investigate crimes — the alleged attempted framing of Joe Biden by Alexander Smirnov — to which he is a witness). I think Garland’s supervision of Special Counsels allowed the abuse of the system, repeatedly.

I’ve never, as far as I’m aware, spoken with Hunter Biden. I have, however, spoken to a good number of the people who were and who would be politically prosecuted in Trump’s second term (not including myself, of course). And the thing I’ve learned from them is because the press is complicit in their politicized prosecution, it guarantees they’ll be isolated, regardless of guilt or innocence. Because the press has unquenchable thirst for lazy dick pic sniffing, they don’t do the work of reading the court filings. Because the press thirsts for a false appearance of both sides neutrality, they’re always on the hunt for something to fit into their both sides scandal box.

And meanwhile, those very same self-important scribes were largely silent in 2020 when Trump pardoned his way out of Russian trouble, and even more silent in 2024 when they could have explained to voters that he had done so.

Whatever else you think about the Hunter Biden case and the way Joe Biden pardoned him, it is crystal clear proof that the thing defenders of democracy swear they’ll do in a second Trump term — rise to the defense of those targeted for political prosecution — they already failed to do. Whatever you think about the Hunter Biden case, the vast majority of people talking about it have absolutely no clue that it is precisely what people fear in Trump’s second term, not (just) because Hunter was charged in two indictments when others would not be, but because Trump and his people repeatedly ordered up this prosecution.

Update: Peter Baker, who wrote an otherwise thorough piece during the election about Trump’s corruption which ignored Hunter, claims to be unable to tell whether Biden’s claim that Hunter’s prosecution was politicized is true or not.

Update: Here’s a copy of a white paper Hunter’s attorneys released to describe the politicization of the case. It adds the Parnas and Scott Brady allegations to the stuff in the selective prosecution motions.

Share this entry

Joe Biden Pardons Hunter

/84 Comments/in /by

According to NBC, in the face of Trump’s vows of retaliation, Biden has changed his mind about pardoning his son.

President Joe Biden has decided to issue a pardon for his son Hunter and is expected to announce it Sunday night, according to a senior White House official with direct knowledge of the decision.

The decision marks a reversal for the president, who has repeatedly said he would not use his executive authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence. The pardon comes ahead of Hunter Biden’s Dec. 12 sentencing for his conviction on federal gun charges. Hunter Biden also is set to be sentenced in a separate criminal case on Dec. 16, after pleading guilty in September on federal tax evasion charges.

Such a pardon would still be insufficient to protect Hunter against the ongoing witch hunt into him — there’s the referral of the false claims claim from the House, for example.

Update: Here’s Biden’s statement. As I suspected, NBC’s view of the pardon was too narrow. It covers any crimes committed before today.

Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.

The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded. Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice – and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.

ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN

A Full and Unconditional Pardon

For those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have hereunto signed my name and caused the Pardon to be recorded with the Department of Justice.

As a reminder, here’s LOLGOP’s Ball of Thread on Rudy’s role in setting Hunter Biden up.

Update: Abbe Lowell has filed a notice of pardon in both Delaware and Los Angeles.

Share this entry

Ball of Thread: Rudy’s Hunter Biden Witch Hunt

/6 Comments/in , /by

Nicole Sandler and I are taking another week off. But LOLGOP finished the next installment of our Ball of Thread series — this one tracing Rudy Giuliani’s effort to frame Joe Biden.

Share this entry

The Zombie Case against Trump’s Indicted Co-Conspirators

/25 Comments/in , , /by

Jack Smith signed the motion to dismiss the January 6 case against Trump, but his appellate lawyer, James Pearce, (digitally) signed the parallel request before the 11th Circuit.

Who knows whether that means anything.

But now that Smith has committed to sustaining the appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision as it applies to Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, someone needs to take over the case and write the reply, which is due on December 2. Pearce has done the primary work for all Jack Smith’s appeals and so could do so here — or, perhaps Jack Smith will close up shop, along with Pearce, and let Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar take over before she’s replaced by John Sauer in January.

One way or another, there’s likely to be a transfer of the Zombie case back to DOJ, where it will be suffocated with pillows never to be heard from again.

The decision to sustain the Nauta and De Oliveira case just long enough for Trump to shut down next year has certain ramifications I only touched in passing in this discussion with Harry Litman about what we might get in a report from Jack Smith, which is probably more accessible than this post about what declination decisions we might see (transcript here).

First, they’ve got due process rights. Meaning, you can’t say anything in a report that might endanger their ability to get a fair trial (a trial they’ll never face, of course). That may lead to redactions of the sort we saw in the original Mueller Report but which were re-released under FOIA. Or it may lead prosecutors to gloss certain things — such as the obstruction — in the report. In the chat with Litman, I noted that ABC reported that Walt Nauta and Trump went back to Mar-a-Lago after hiding documents from the FBI, which might make the report. But if it appears in there, it would need to be presented in such a way to protect Nauta’s due process rights.

It’s possible, even, that until the appeal, DOJ would avoid describing the investigative steps taken in the documents case after Smith was appointed in November 2022. The logic of Cannon’s opinion basically wiped out all that investigative work. Poof. Though it’s possible that Julie Edelstein and David Raskin — who left Smith’s team in October — have done something to recreate some of the work, such as the declassification that had happened in advance of an imagined Florida trial.

Meanwhile, sustaining the case against Nauta and De Oliveira creates an interesting dilemma for DOJ that may have repercussions for others and Trump’s DOJ going forward: how to get rid of the appeal. He would pay least political capital by just dismissing the appeal. But that would reflect a DOJ stance that Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed — something that might bind DOJ going forward (as if Pam Bondi won’t just pick Trumpy US Attorneys to do her dirty work like Bill Barr did) — though that may be unavoidable if Trump’s Solicitor General and Deputy Attorney General had both argued that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed, as they have.

But that would go some way to arguing that David Weiss’ appointment as Special Counsel is unconstitutional as well. It might give Hunter Biden, if his father doesn’t pardon him (and Alexander Smirnov, if he is convicted next month and not pardoned) cause to enjoin Weiss’ prosecutors from publishing a report; it would also make Hunter’s appeal of his charges far easier, especially in Los Angeles, where Weiss is not the confirmed US Attorney.

Which may be why (as both Litman and I suggested) Trump might want to pardon Hunter — to give the air of magnanimity to unintended consequences of his efforts to kill the case against him. To say nothing of the transparency into Trump’s first term that Hunter might get if he succeeds with his other appeals.

The case against Nauta and De Oliveira will be dead, one way or another, in two months. But until then, it’ll exist as a Zombie, having potentially unanticipated consequences.

Update: The full Jack Smith team has submitted its reply brief.

Share this entry

David Weiss Dons His “Let’s Go Brandon” Frame

/13 Comments/in , , , /by

In a bid to defeat a motion in limine from Alexander Smirnov prohibiting mention of his nine lawfully owned guns, David Weiss’ prosecutors revealed that they only want to use the guns, if necessary, to prove ownership of other things found in a search of Smirnov’s home, including an anti-Biden hat.

On February 21, 2024, after securing a search warrant signed by United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, FBI agents executed a search of the defendant’s residence in Las Vegas. During the search, agents found nine firearms. Agents also found other items, including electronic devices, and other evidence, such as a hat emblazoned with an anti-Public Official 1 euphemism. These items are directly relevant to the charges in this case. For example, the government plans to introduce communications found on the defendant’s electronic devices that similarly evidence bias again Public Official 1. And the hat seized from his residence demonstrate the same bias, which bears on the defendant’s motive in providing the FBI with false derogatory information about Public Official 1, who was a candidate for President of the United States, in the months leading up to the 2020 election.

On one level, by all means, show us Alexander Smirnov’s Let’s Go Brandon hat! It’ll work wonders in Los Angeles!

On another level, I can’t help but think that David Weiss’ team has just given Smirnov (who might well get a pardon anyway after Trump is inaugurated) a case for selective prosecution.

Smirnov, recall, is accused of lying to the FBI and in so doing causing the filing of a false report.

But these very same prosecutors — Derek Hines and Leo Wise — were in the last year faced with witnesses with an anti-Biden bias, the guy who sold Hunter Biden a gun in 2018 and the Delaware cop who first spoke to the gun shop owners, the former of whom (according to a filing from Abbe Lowell) similarly caused a false document to be filed, the gun purchase form to which his staffer belatedly added a claim that Hunter had provided a second form of ID when he purchased the gun. Hines and Wise have not charged those people, even though they reportedly sent WhatsApp texts during the 2020 election in an effort to publicize the gun purchase, the same kind of biased messages that Hines and Wise intend to submit to prove their case against Smirnov.

It also reveals a now-exposed attempt by the gun store to fabricate a false narrative about the gun sale. Palimere said the addition of the seller transaction serial number (“5,653”) may have been added on October 26, 2018. (TAB 4, Palimere FD-302 at 4). He said the vehicle registration reference was added in 2021. Yet, the government provided WhatsApp communications from October 2020 and February 2021 between Palimere, friends of his, and then-Delaware state trooper Vincent Clemons3 (see TABs 6 – 6C), all of which refer to the form, a plan to send it to others, needing to get their stories straight about what occurred in 2020, and wanting the gun sale issue and the form exposed during the Presidential campaign.

3 Not to be lost is the fact that Clemons was the Delaware State Police officer who first arrived at Janssens’ grocery store on October 23, 2018 when Hallie Biden threw a bag containing the handgun into a trash can in front of the store. It was Clemons who took statements about the handgun from both Hallie and Hunter Biden and was part of filling out an official police report on the issue. Two years later, he is in the communications with Palimere about the Form 4473, one of which states: “Yep your side is simple – Hunter bought a gun from you, he filled out the proper forms and the Feds approved him for a purchase.” (emphasis added). Palimere later responded, “I’ll keep it short and sweet as well: Hunter bought a gun. The police visited me asking for verification of the purchase and that’s all I can recall from that day. It was over 2 years ago.” (TAB 6B, 10/26/20 Palimere-Clemons Texts at 4, 6.) The reference to filling out the “proper forms” is not lost on defense counsel given what transpired thereafter. And, despite the importance of Clemons (e.g., the person who actually took the statements), the Special Counsel is foregoing him as a witness to call two other Delaware officers instead.

I’m at a loss to imagine how Hines and Wise would distinguish the doctored gun form from the FD-1023 from Smirnov they claim is false. Both were an effort to criminalize the Biden family during the 2020 election. If anything, the retroactively doctored gun purchase form was more dangerous. And yet Hines and Wise charged Smirnov but didn’t charge the gun shop owner. Indeed, they successfully buried precisely the kind of texts showing bias they want to use against Smirnov.

This apparent double standard regarding doctored forms comes even as prosecutors are trying to prevent Smirnov from invoking Hunter’s failed plea hearing to claim (falsely) that Hunter got a sweetheart plea deal. In a filing signed by Wise, prosecutors claim that Smirnov was not mentioned at Hunter’s failed plea hearing, and so he would have no evidentiary reason to rely on the transcript.

[C]ontrary to the defendant’s representation, in the 110 pages of transcript attached to his motion, there is not a single reference to (1) the defendant or this prosecution, (2) “the sitting President,” (3) any accusations against the defendant, (4) the defendant’s “loyal service” to the FBI, or (5) that the defendant was a “Russian Spy.”

I asked Weiss’ spox whether Leo Wise was really claiming that Smirnov went unmentioned. “We will decline to comment beyond our statements and filings in court,” he replied.

But when Leo Wise responded to Judge Maryellen Noreika that, yes, even though Hunter Biden had been assured a month earlier there was no ongoing investigation, that there was in fact was an ongoing investigation,

THE COURT: All right. So you said there might be additional charges. Are you at liberty to tell us what you’re thinking those might be or is that just a hypothetical that there might be?

MR. WISE: It was a hypothetical response to your question.

THE COURT: Is there an ongoing investigation here?

MR. WISE: There is.

THE COURT: May I ask then why if there is we’re doing this piecemeal?

MR. WISE: Your Honor may ask, but I’m not in a position where I can say.

And then said he could still charge FARA violations,

MR. WISE: So I can tell you what I think we can’t charge. I can’t tell you what the ongoing investigation is. So, for instance, I think based on the terms of the agreement, we cannot bring tax evasion charges for the years described in the factual statement to the Plea Agreement. And I think we cannot bring for the firearms charges based on the firearm identified in the factual statement to the Diversion Agreement.

THE COURT: All right. So there are references to foreign companies, for example, in the facts section. Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?

MR. WISE: Yes.

And then got Special Counsel status that would only be required if Weiss were pursuing something implicating Joe Biden — like Smirnov’s bribery claim — he almost certainly was invoking Alexander Smirnov.

Wise made that claim even while Smirnov was still fighting to obtain material on David Weiss’ decision to chase the Smirnov allegation (there was a hearing on this yesterday, but nothing is docketed on it yet).

The Defendant requested communication related to the request that U.S. Attorney David Weiss’s team “assist” with “an investigation of allegations” related to the FD-1023. The government refuses to produce this material and ignores that fact that the government chose to include the following language in the Indictment: “In July 2023, the FBI requested that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware assist the FBI in an investigation of allegations related to the 2020 1023. At that time, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware was handling an investigation and prosecution of Businessperson 1.” Accordingly, not only did the government, in its Indictment, place the communications at issue, it is clear that the communication are relevant and discoverable. This request has been outstanding since March 5, 2024.

And the apparent double standard comes as Smirnov is attempting to put the conduct of Smirnov’s FBI handler — the guy who didn’t take alarm when Smirnov sent him already debunked Fox News disinformation — at issue.

The dispute over the handler’s conduct is taking two forms. First, prosecutors are trying to exclude Smirnov’s expert witness Gregory Scott Rogers, a former FBI agent who would testify to errors that Smirnov’s handler made. They’re also trying to exclude the content of three reports on the handling of Smirnov.

It has, predictably, declined into a display of prosecutorial dickishness.

In their motion to exclude Rogers, for example, the same prosecutorial team who claimed sawdust was cocaine made much of the that Smirnov’s expert witness said “upmost” instead of “utmost.”

Next, the disclosure states, “A CHS providing the type and amount of information provided by Smirnov should be handled with the upmost [sic.] diligence.” Disclosure at 5. According to Merriam-Webster, “upmost is frequently used as a mistaken spelling of utmost in its adjective and noun forms.” https://www.merriamwebster.com/grammar/utmost-vs-upmostdifference#:~:text=In%20its%20dictionary%20sense%2C%20upmost,its%20adjective% 20and%20noun%20forms (last viewed by author on November 1, 2024). The government assumes that Rogers meant to say “utmost,” but the fact that he can’t even produce an error free disclosure speaks to the quality of his proposed testimony. In any event, like his opinion that the defendant was “poorly handled,” his opinion that the defendant should have been handled with the “upmost diligence” is also undefined. So what does “upmost diligence” mean? The disclosure doesn’t tell us.

Of course, these prosecutors aren’t above making their own typos, as when a filing signed by Leo Wise uses “again” instead of “against.”

For example, the government plans to introduce communications found on the defendant’s electronic devices that similarly evidence bias again Public Official 1.

Yet they want to treat far more significant errors made by Smirnov’s handler as “essentially ministerial errors.”

Among the errors documented in the Source Reports include getting Smirnov’s name and birth country wrong.

The reports are also critical to the defense, including based on the anticipated testimony of the Defendant’s noticed expert. For example, in the February 13,2013, Field Office Annual Source Report, FOASR, the following deficiencies were noted:

1. The Handler failed to give the CHS extraterritorial travel admonishments;

2. The Handler allowed the CHS to conduct otherwise illegal activity, OIA, outside of approved time periods;

3. The Handler documented the CHS’s true name in the wrong CHS subfile;

4. The Handler placed an unrelated CHS’s NCIC record in this CHS’s file;

5. The Handler identified the wrong country of birth for this CHS in his file;

6. The Handler failed to document appropriate receipts for payments to the CHS;

7. CHS was allowed to conduct personal international travel without appropriate approval and documentation in his file.

In a later Standard Validation Report covering 2013-2021 it was noted:

1. HA continued to fail to appropriately obtain approval and document CHS’s international travel;

2. Derogatory information reported about the CHS and more unreported/undocumented otherwise illegal activity, OIA.

In the Source Validation Report for the period March, 2021-November, 2023 FBIHQ recommended that FBI Seattle, the office where the HA had transferred to from FBI San Francisco in 2019 and brought Smirnov’s file with him, stop operating the CHS noting that they believed that the CHS was no longer fully under the HA’s control, may be committing unauthorized illegal activity, UIA, and concern that the media’s reporting of the CHS’s information concerning the Biden family’s influence peddling in Ukraine would vitiate his ability to continue to function as a CHS. In that same document, it was recommended that CHS be polygraphed. Based upon the records provided by the government, it does not appear that a polygraph of Mr. Smirnov was ever scheduled or conducted.

Smirnov claims he can prove that he said and did things with his handler that did not get documented. If he can prove that, then it’s going to be hard for prosecutors to prove that Smirnov’s claims are lies rather than that the FBI agent fucked up.

That said, there’s something more interesting about the validation reports on Smirnov: They go through November 2023 and still treat him as a viable informant. November is when, on November 7, David Weiss said the Brady side channel would only appear in his final report. November is when, on November 15, Abbe Lowell asked for discovery on the side channel. And November is when, on November 16, CNN reported that the FBI had dropped its pursuit of FARA and bribery allegations.

Smirnov’s lawyers are right there’s a tie between how Hunter Biden was treated and why he was charged. But they’ve got the emphasis wrong.

All the evidence suggests that prosecutors had to charge him or risk their Hunter Biden case too.

Filings

September 26: Smirnov motion to continue

September 27: Weiss response on motion to continue

October 14: Smirnov warns of motion to compel

October 15: Judge Otis Wright denies continuance

October 28: Government response to discovery

October 31: Smirnov reply on discovery

October 31: Smirnov motions in limine

November 1: Government motions in limine

November 4: Renewed bid to continue trial based on delayed discovery

November 5: Motion to dismiss for discovery violations

November 5: Opposition to renewed bid to continue

November 8: Judge Wright denies motion to compel

November 12: Response to motion to dismiss on discovery violations

November 15: Defense response to motions in limine

October 31: Government response to motions in limine

Share this entry

The Legal Cases Implicating Donald Trump’s Conduct That Won’t Go Away [Because of His Election]

/42 Comments/in , /by

There’s been a lot of chatter since Tuesday about how the criminal cases against Donald Trump will go away because of his election (CNN has one of the most comprehensive discussions of what will happen to Trump’s guilty verdict in New York, for which he is due to be sentenced this month).

But there’s been less discussion of the legal cases implicating Donald Trump’s conduct that won’t go away solely because of his election (which is to say, they may go away for other reasons). These implicate Trump, but because his biological person is not the defendant, should not be implicated by his election.

Consider AJ Delgado’s lawsuit against Trump’s first campaign and his campaign managers. She sued five years ago for sex, gender, and pregnancy discrimination after Trump’s people allegedly retaliated when she filed a discrimination case when she was sidelined after Jason Miller got her pregnant. Of late, she’s been slogging along pro se, seeking evidence of other women who were discriminated against by either of his then two campaigns and getting depositions of people who were involved in the effort to silence her. In September, Trump filed his motion for summary judgment. But Delgado just got a continuance on hers until the end of December because she had to depose Michael Glassner and because Miller continues to waste her time dicking around on paternity issues in Florida.

More interesting still, there’s Peter Strzok. In July, DOJ settled the Privacy Act lawsuits Strzok and Lisa Page filed for having their texts shared with the press. But his claim that he had been fired for his First Amendment protected speech and denied due process continued. In September, DOJ filed its motion for summary judgement. While the filing and exhibits are significantly redacted, the motion seems to dirty Strzok up based on claims about his actions in the cases related to 2016 and argue standard Human Resources claims about the process by which he was fired. Last week, Strzok filed his own motion for summary judgment. Again, it’s heavily redacted, but he notes that the FBI changed their firing guidelines after he and Andrew McCabe were fired. He lays out evidence that others who sent inappropriate content on their FBI devices, including racist language and language attacking Hillary Clinton, were not fired.

But the case is most likely to come down to David Bowdich’s credibility. Bowdich’s deposition appears to say that he fired Strzok because of the damage his texts did to the FBI. Strzok will attempt to discredit Bowdich’s claims, firstly, with a statement from Andy McCabe that when the texts were first discovered, Bowdich said nothing to disagree with McCabe’s stance that Strzok would not be fired. There’s something else, which is completely redacted, that the FBI only disclosed when they settled the Privacy Act suit, but it’s not clear what that is. If it ever goes to trial, then Trump’s claims that he was responsible for the firing will be at issue (and anything else interesting he said in the hard-won deposition Strzok got, as well as Trump’s requests for retaliation.

All that said, the judges in these two cases — Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker (and if it survives, Analisa Torres) for Delgado, and Amy Berman Jackson for Strzok — seem pretty skeptical of these two cases, so they may get dismissed on summary judgment. If not, you might see trials on Trump’s discrimination and retaliation against his perceived enemies next year. But if ABJ doesn’t throw out this case, DOJ is likely to appeal before trial in a bid to expand their authority to fire people without due process.

But I see no reason they’ll get dismissed because Trump will be President. His campaign is the defendant in the first case, FBI is the defendant in the second.

An even more interesting example is Hunter Biden.

A lot of people are rightly saying that Biden should protect his son (and brother) by simply pardoning them on the way out — and I get that instinct. All the more so because, yesterday, James Comer suggested he — or Trump’s DOJ — would renew his pursuit of Hunter Biden in the next Congress. But even after that, Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated the answer she’s always given: President Biden will not pardon his son.

President Biden still has no plans to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, in the final months of his presidency, the White House press secretary reiterated on Thursday.

“We’ve been asked that question multiple times and our answer stands — which is no,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at Thursday’s press briefing.

I had already been thinking that Hunter may not want a full pardon, because he still has appeals that might succeed.

And amid discussions of DOJ’s hopes to defeat the Aileen Cannon precedent on Special Counsels, rather than just dismiss the stolen documents case against Trump and the two aides who protected him, it makes more sense.

Here’s a (dated) summary of all the legal proceedings in Hunter’s life (the two disgruntled IRS agents have since added several suits, one targeting Abbe Lowell for defamation).

The basis for appeal that most dick pic sniffing journalists are focused on is Hunter’s Second Amendment challenge to his conviction in Delaware. In the wake of Bruen, other defendants have had some (mixed) success arguing that — for example — the government can only prohibit possessing guns during drug impairment, and prosecutors very pointedly dodged having to prove that in Hunter’s case. Because other (more dangerous) defendants are delaying incarceration during appeal, I think it plausible that Judge Maryellen Noreika will agree to do so here, too.

But Trump’s successful claim that Jack Smith was not lawfully appointed carries over to Hunter’s cases too (and, importantly, Alexander Smirnov’s). David Weiss was hired under the very same authority that Jack Smith was, the authority that Cannon said was unconstitutional. And both Hunter and Smirnov already tried to make the same argument on interlocutory basis.

On paper, Hunter’s challenge to David Weiss’ appointment as Special Counsel is weakest in Delaware, because Weiss could have prosecuted him as US Attorney anyway. But Cannon’s ruling says that improper appointment resets everything to before the appointment happened. And the most important evidence submitted at Hunter’s trial — the gun residue, a warrant to search his laptop for evidence of drug use, and probably key interviews with Zoe Kestan — all happened after Weiss started acting as Special Counsel. They also all happened after statute of limitations for the crime expired. If this challenge succeeded, the case should be time barred.

Hunter’s case against David Weiss’ appointment would be stronger in LA, because Weiss chose not to use special attorney authority to charge Hunter there (though given how prosecutors charged him, Trump’s DOJ would have until next year to refile the charges).

The case is stronger still for Smirnov, because — by all appearances — Weiss got Special Counsel authority so he could investigate a matter implicating Joe Biden, Smirnov’s allegedly false attempt to frame Biden. Smirnov’s charges, too, are getting stale. Because Weiss charged Smirnov for statements he made in 2020, not last year, they would expire next spring (I’ll return to what recent motions in the case say about Weiss’ investigation).

But as I already said, Smirnov is someone whom Trump might have real incentive to pardon at the start of his term, particularly if Smirnov gets his renewed bid for a delay, meaning a pardon would be pre-trial.

While there are other people (most notably, Michael Cohen) who might challenge their prosecution based on the Cannon precedent, if prosecutions against Smirnov, Walt Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira went away, via whatever means, then Hunter Biden would be the sole person facing prison time based on what Cannon said was an unconstitutional appointment. While normally he might not do so, given those circumstances, I think both Judge Mark Scarsi might let Hunter stay out of prison pending appeal as well.

The Second Amendment and Special Counsel appeals will get the most attention.

It’s Hunter’s other appeals that might be more interesting, though. Best as I can tell, Hunter has preserved the following issues for appeal in one or both of his cases:

  • David Weiss reneged on a signed deal (the Noreika and Scarsi decisions are slightly inconsistent on this point, so there’s a circuit split already)
  • Pressure from Trump and Congress led Weiss to change his mind about prosecuting Hunter (I’m not certain this has been preserved in Los Angeles)
  • Pressure from the IRS agents led Weiss to renege on the tax plea deal
  • Noreika improperly admitted evidence from the laptop
  • Noreika improperly excluded evidence of how the Delaware cop who interviewed Hunter in 2018 and the gun shop owner pushed to get Hunter prosecuted and then revised their stories long after the fact
  • Noreika improperly refused discovery on issues pertaining to the Brady side channel and Smirnov’s attempt to frame Joe Biden

Hunter’s lawsuits against the IRS and Garrett Ziegler may strengthen his hand in some of these challenges. The Ziegler lawsuit, for example, implicates chain of custody going back to John Paul Mac Isaac, and therefore chain of custody that reflects on the chain of custody problems the FBI chose to ignore. The IRS lawsuit may provide a way to depose the IRS agents’ lawyers about when their contacts with Congress really started.

And one of the claims that Noreika blew off that would have renewed import are two IRS laws that criminalize pressuring the IRS to investigate people, one of which explicitly pertains to the President.

Some of Trump’s possible actions, like a Smirnov pardon, might strengthen Hunter’s hand in making these arguments.

Barring a Hunter Biden pardon, he gets to at least try to make these appeals after he is sentenced in December. And because his appeals will implicate two other legal appeals popular on the right — Trump’s own argument about Special Counsels, and efforts to eliminate gun controls — he may be able to do that on (lengthy) pretrial release.

Again, these are all uphill fights. I’m not saying these appeals will work. But even just arguing them will implicate the kinds of corruption we expect to see going forward.

Right wingers are going to make sure Hunter Biden’s life sucks anyway. But by dint of Trump’s conviction, he has what almost no one else in the country will be able to have: standing to argue about Trump’s own corruption.

Share this entry

David Weiss Chose Not to Record the Alexander Smirnov Interview He Attended

/15 Comments/in , /by

Alexander Smirnov has started filing motions in limine. I’ll return to them after Tuesday.

But for the moment I want to flag a detail he included in a motion to exclude the interview he had on September 27, 2023.

The interview takes up four pages of the indictment. In addition to providing varying statements about the charged false statement — that is, that in a call in 2019, Mykola Zlochevsky accused Joe Biden of accepting a bribe — Smirnov allegedly told a new false story, one that is not charged. he claimed that Hunter Biden had been recorded at the Premier Palace in Kyiv. As the indictment pointed out, that was obviously false, as Hunter Biden had never been to Kyiv.

I’ve always argued that that was an attempt to string on investigators, to give them more dirt on Hunter Biden, precisely what (I speculated) Smirnov perceived that they wanted.

But it was not charged for any of the claims he made in that interview, in which he substantially restated the initial false claim.

This may be why: His motion in limine describes that Special Counsel — that is, David Weiss — attended the interview, and it was not recorded.

Despite seeking an Indictment based solely on statements made in June 2020, Mr. Smirnov understands that the Government intends to introduce statements Mr. Smirnov allegedly made more than three years later, during his interview the FBI on September 27, 2023. Special Counsel was present at this interview, which was never recorded.

This is not — not remotely!! — how you approach an interview with a guy you suspect of lying.

On the contrary, it’s how you approach an interview with someone you’re still treating as a witness against someone else.

This strongly suggests that as late as September 27, 2023 David Weiss was still chasing the effort, launched by Bill Barr’s DOJ, to frame Joe Biden.

As I’ll explain more next week, there are other elements that suggest Weiss and his prosecutors are trying to hang all this exclusively on Smirnov.

Share this entry