As Hunter Biden desperately tries to escape accountability, Judge Mark Scarsi refused to grant his appeal to dismiss tax charges against him and recognize the previous plea agreement arranged by Hunter’s legal team.
Scarsi remarked in an 82-page order that the president’s son “fail[ed] to present a reasonable inference, let alone clear evidence, of discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose.”
Furthermore, the judge said there was no proof of the prosecutors giving in to pressure from Congressional Republicans, contradicting Biden’s arguments that he was “unfairly targeted.”
District Judge Scarsi turned down eight motions to dismiss the charges against Hunter, which accuse him of scheming to avoid paying $1.4 million in tax between 2016 and 2019 while splurging on a lavish lifestyle.
During the mentioned timeframe, Hunter has been earning $7 million from his role in Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian firm, as well as in CEFC China Energy.
According to the charges, Biden spent hundreds of thousands on strippers, $190,000 on adult entertainment, and around $400,000 on clothes.
The president’s son pleaded not guilty to the nine felony and misdemeanor tax charges against him, despite evidence proving otherwise. His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, insists that the prosecution is politically motivated, but the judge doubts these claims.
The judge also rejected accusations from the Biden camp regarding the timing of the indictments, leaks from IRS agents, and the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the case.
In addition to tax charges, Hunter is also facing charges in Delaware related to falsifying a federal form to purchase a gun in 2018.
Hunter denied using or being addicted to illicit drugs but has acknowledged using crack cocaine during that period.
Hunter’s attorney also insisted that the plea agreement between Special Counsel David Weiss should be enforced despite being invalidated by a federal judge. However, Scarsi ultimately killed the appeal and said it never got the required approval of a probation officer.
“Having found that the Diversion Agreement is a contract that binds the parties but that the parties made the Probation Officer’s signature a condition precedent to its performance, the Court turns to Defendant’s theory of immunity: that the United States’ obligation to refrain from prosecuting Defendant under Section II(15) of the Diversion Agreement is currently in force. It is not. The immunity provision is not one exempted from the term of the contract under the survival clause,” the district judge argued.
Hunter’s scheduled trial is on June 20, 2024. If found guilty, Hunter will be imprisoned for 17 years.
Latest Comments