Robert Hur has released his report, declining charges against Biden but finding he did willfully retain information. He wrote a 388-page report about — by his own description — “a single 8-word utterance.”
I’ll do a running thread here.
[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]
Because everyone will likely be restless and itchy about today’s hearing, I’m putting up an open thread.
Feel free to discuss Trump v. Anderson here but bring all your off-topic discussion to this thread, stay on topic in other threads.
Wikipedia page for Trump v. Anderson here, in case you need a primer:
Trump v. Anderson (No. 23-719, filed January 3, 2024)
In a nutshell, Colorado’s state supreme court found Donald J. Trump disqualified from the state’s primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which bars candidates who have participated in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution in spite of swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Trump appealed the ruling; the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today.
The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. ET.
You can listen to the arguments at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx – they are expected to run over the scheduled 80 minutes.
Long-time community member harpie has shared quite a few more resources pertinent to today’s arguments below in comments (thanks, harpie!).
~ ~ ~
REMINDER:
— We have been moving to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of 8 letters.
— We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single-use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard.**
— If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.
Changes will be made soon to the comment system; if you have not already changed your username to meet the standard by the time the changes are rolled out, you may find your comments do not clear for publication until your username meets the standard.
Thank you.
Like everyone else, I anxiously await the DC Circuit decision on Trump’s immunity bid.
Unlike most people, I’m not yet convinced that the delay so far stems from Judge Karen Henderson deliberately stalling the decision.
To be sure, I identified Henderson as the key target for persuasion before the hearing. I even suggested she might happily join an opinion holding that unofficial acts may be charged criminally, without ruling regarding official acts.
Her statements at the hearing on immunity were a pleasant surprise; it seems she’ll easily reach that position, adopting at least the Blassingame standard that former Presidents can be charged for unofficial acts, like starting a coup to try to stay in office.
So, as I said, I’m still not convinced she’s stalling.
That’s because the decision is more complicated than most commentators appreciate.
There are three decisions in front of these judges. First, whether or not the court has jurisdiction to rule at all. Then, whether they should just rule for unofficial acts, like launching a coup to get reelected, or whether they should rule, generally, that Presidents can even be prosecuted for their official acts, like pardoning Roger Stone to buy his silence. Finally, they need to decide how to release the opinion, possibly in a way to give Trump fewer options to stall further.
Because the American Oversight amicus — a pretty convincing one! — raised a question about whether the DC Circuit had jurisdiction, it caused a potential split between Florence Pan and Michelle Childs, both Biden appointees, who otherwise seemed to agree on the scope of their ruling. Childs seemed very persuaded by the AO brief, and so very cautious about their basis to rule at all.
As a result, there’s no natural majority, meaning whatever opinion(s) get written will be far harder to map out. It is simply a far harder opinion than most people think, and if they get this wrong, it’s going to lead to far longer delays at both the en banc and SCOTUS level.
Talk to me in two weeks. If we’ve got no ruling then, I’m happy to start entertaining theories about deliberate delay.
What I don’t understand, however, is how the visible panic of a few TV lawyers who’ve been wrong every step of the way on the January 6 investigation has led to an all-out panic among Democrats.
The result has been self-inflicted impotence.
No judicial outcome will ever be sufficient, by itself, to beat Trump. No realistic Democrat should be staking their electoral hopes on one or some guilty verdicts — not because they wouldn’t help, but because you can’t control that.
Every single person reading this has in their power the ability to do something — whether it’s local electoral work, repeating discussions of Trump’s corruption so much that it begins to drown out stories about Hunter Biden, or educating your neighbors about Trump’s central role in rolling back reproductive choice — to help defeat Trump. Every second you spend worrying about Karen Henderson is time you’re not doing whatever it is that will be most useful in defeating Trump.
Stop making yourself impotent by worrying about the court cases. Stop hoping that any court case is going to be the Magical Sparkle Pony that makes this easy. Stop wallowing in provably false conspiracy theories about the January 6 investigation that ignore a bunch of public things the TV lawyers don’t talk about.
This is not going to be easy, I promise you. Find some way to make yourself useful to make it, at least, easier.
In both a footnote of his reply motion for discovery …
1 The prosecution’s opposition briefs reveal some new evidentiary issues (e.g., seizing electronic evidence for the gun charges for the first time pursuant to a December 4, 2023 warrant; using a grand jury in California in connection with the tax case to elicit evidence for already-indicted gun charges in Delaware; seeking a search warrant in December 2023 to search for evidence in support of its charges three months after having charged; testing a leather pouch for cocaine residue in October 2023 that it had in its possession for five years; denying there was Probation’s approval for the diversion agreement) in addition to those raised in Mr. Biden’s motions to dismiss themselves (e.g., how a Delaware agreement for a diverted gun charge and two tax misdemeanors turned into multiple felonies in two jurisdictions following massive political pressure to do just that). Based on the prosecution’s admissions made only recently in its filings, Mr. Biden will expeditiously file a motion to suppress improperly gathered evidence. [my emphasis]
And two footnotes in his motion to compel …
3 The search warrant on December 4, 2023, which post-dates the firearm indictment by almost three months, is the first time in the course of this five-year investigation that DOJ obtained a warrant to search the alleged laptop (and iCloud account and backup data) for evidence of federal firearms violations. The prosecution then used that warrant to purportedly review and seize, for the first time, text messages, photos, and other evidence in support of its felony charges, several of which the prosecution cited in its pleadings on January 16, 2024. (See DE 68 at 8–9.) Moreover, that warrant contained testimony (in support of finding probable cause) about the firearm obtained from a witness in a grand jury empaneled in the Central District of California in November 2023 after this indictment had already been brought. Accordingly, the issue raised—as a result of the prosecution’s recent filings—is one to explore at the evidentiary hearing Mr. Biden requested (DE 64) and a motion to suppress which will be filed promptly.
[snip]
18 Citing District of Delaware Search Warrant No. 23-507M. Unlike the Office’s prior search warrants during the five-year investigation that were for tax, financial, or foreign-business related offenses, this warrant was specifically for offenses pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §§ 922, 924 (firearms offenses). See supra n.3, and a further motion to suppress concerning this December 4, 2023 search will be forthcoming. [my emphasis]
Hunter Biden attorney Abbe Lowell said he would soon be filing a motion to suppress “improperly gathered evidence.”
Part of this will likely be a challenge to the belated pretextual testing of the gun for cocaine residue without also testing for fingerprints and dating of the residue to the time period immediately after Hunter purchased a gun.
But in all three footnotes, he promises to challenge the December 4, 2023 warrant, which would implicate the original search warrant to Apple, the exploitation of the laptop, and follow-on searches for four devices backed up to his iCloud:
After over three years of controversy about the laptop attributed to Hunter Biden, this challenge may finally unpack the reliability of the device that has driven right wing frothers nuts ever since.
Game on!
There’s a variety of things that Lowell might rely on to challenge the use of the laptop — and possibly, the four backed up devices, as fruits of the laptop — some sound and some less so. They include:
Those are just some of the potential bases for a Fourth Amendment challenge to using the laptop as evidence. There may be more.
It’s the last bullet that I want to focus on here. Shapley’s notes show that on November 6, 2019 — over a month after obtaining Hunter’s full iCloud account on September 25, 2019 — Josh Wilson used the serial number provided by JPMI and “determined that device was registered to [Hunter Biden] via apple ID account/iCloud account.”
It is absolutely the case that at 8:50AM Delaware time on October 21, 2018 — nine days after Hunter bought a gun and two days before he no longer possessed it — the laptop that would eventually end up at the FBI logged into Hunter’s iCloud account, though unlike some devices before and after, there’s no public confirmation of a tie to Apple directly, such as Apple welcoming him to a new computer or a receipt.
But there’s something unusual about what came next.
Normally, when Hunter Biden started using one of the new devices that can be clearly tied to his account, he would log into iCloud, then shortly thereafter log into one or another of his two Google accounts, Rosemont Seneca and/or droidhunter. As a result, Google would send security alerts to both the Gmail account and a whichever of the iCloud emails were set as backup.
For example, after Hunter bought a new laptop (possibly the laptop found at Keith Ablow’s in March 2019) on August 31, 2018, he signed into his iCloud account the next day, then, also on September 1, signed into his droidhunter Gmail account, then into his Rosemont Seneca account on September 2.
Someone signed into one of his new replacement iPhones, ordered through Asurion, on October 14 and then, on October 17, signed into his Rosemont Seneca Gmail account.
Someone signed into a new iPhone 8 Plus on October 23, 2018 — possibly the other replacement phone from Asurion — and then signed into his Rosemont Seneca Gmail account that same day.
Things are a bit fuzzier with some phones replaced through Apple the next spring, after his life was packed up on a laptop for delivery to John Paul Mac Isaac.
On February 21, 2019, he got a new iPhone, associated with his droidhunter account, and signed in on his droidhunter Gmail right away.
On March 1, 2019, he got a new iPhone XR — possibly the one obtained with the 2020 warrant. Then bought an adult themed App on March 7, then signed into his droidhunter email on March 9.
There are an astounding number of other devices used to log into one or another account associated with Hunter Biden’s digital life. But for recognizable device replacements, the pattern generally holds: Sign into Apple, then sign into Google.
But based on what is available on the public emails, after someone logged into Hunter’s iCloud account with a new laptop on October 21, 2018, it was weeks before a new Mac device logged into his Gmail accounts, starting with a November 16 attempt to log into Rosemont Seneca that was rejected by Google, followed by a reset of the droidhunter account and a login into that on November 20, followed by a login into Rosemont Seneca on November 24. Not only did those attempts come in the midst of a bunch of attempts to get into Hunter Biden’s Twitter account from a Mac. But on November 27, someone appears to have gotten into his iCloud account from Troutdale, OR.
New Mac devices also accessed Hunter’s Rosemont Seneca account on February 9 and February 20, 2019.
As I’ve already described, a great deal of Hunter Biden’s “normal” activity on his devices in this period looked like he was hacking himself. For example, on at least 36 occasions in 2017 and 2018, Wells Fargo shut down Hunter’s online access because of activity that looked, to it, like a hack. Many if not most of that was probably, instead, just Hunter Biden doing erratic things. In other cases, it’s impossible without more data to show whether a particular access or expenditure was Hunter himself, someone who had acquired one of his devices, or someone more malicious.
But there is a pattern, and the laptop ultimately shared with the FBI, he deviated from that pattern.
Certainly, David Weiss might argue that the FBI just hadn’t looked at Hunter Biden’s digital fingerprints that closely when they got a warrant on December 13, 2019.
But they’ve had five years to look at it in the interim period, and might have a harder time arguing that this pattern was normal.
Update: Just catching up to the Delaware docket (JPMI’s suit and Hunter’s countersuit). Judge Robert Robinson will hold hearings in everyone’s motions on February 22.
Update: Abbe Lowell has amended his lawsuit against the IRS, tweaking it to make statements that lawyers for Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley made. He told Mark Scarsi had had some motion regarding the disgruntled agents, so I expect this filing will be cited in that motion.
There was something subtle but potentially important in Abbe Lowell’s motion to compel discovery in Hunter Biden’s gun case.
First, after discussing the discovery requests he sent in October and November, he described reminding prosecutors (this is actually in the October letter) that Leo Wise had assured Judge Maryellen Noreika on July 26 that prosecutors had provided all Brady materials.
Mr. Biden reminded the prosecution that this Court ordered the production of Brady materials on July 26 and October 3 and asked the prosecution to confirm whether further productions were forthcoming, or Mr. Biden would need to move to compel. Id. As the Court may recall, the prosecution told the Court at the July 26 hearing that it had already produced all Brady material. (7/26/23 Tr. at 7 (“THE COURT: Has all Brady material been produced? MR. WISE: Yes, Your Honor”.).) Yet, the prosecution did not send the first production for almost three months, until October 12, 2023, with a cover letter noting its production was “in response” to Mr. Biden’s October 8 letter requesting discovery. [emphasis original]
Then, later in the motion, Lowell described that the Delaware case file prosecutors didn’t provide until October 12 — in response to the October 8 letter — included a declination decision.
Despite assuring the Court all Brady material had been produced on July 26, 2023, since then, the prosecution has produced an October 2018 state police case file of the firearm incident that includes interview memoranda and deliberations among Delaware state prosecutors regarding whether to file charges—per the file, on October 30, 2018, after reviewing the facts, New Castle County prosecutors decided not to prosecute and closed the case. [emphasis original]
A decision not to charge for state crimes would be helpful but not definitive at a trial on federal charges. But it pretty clearly is helpful to Hunter Biden’s defense.
And yet, prosecutors hadn’t provided it to Chris Clark before, on July 26, Leo Wise assured Judge Noreika that prosecutors had provided all Brady.
I suspect the motion to compel is designed as much as a challenge — “is this your final answer?” — before Lowell makes further allegations that prosecutors withheld material helpful to Hunter’s defense. That is, I suspect Lowell knows of certain things, perhaps the memos that Joseph Ziegler’s original supervisor, Matthew Kutz, included in the case file documenting improper political influence, that also clearly count as Brady that he hasn’t received yet.
That said, I suspect there was a pretty good reason prosecutors didn’t bother to give Clark that Delaware case file before the hearing on July 26: because there was never any consideration of actually charging Hunter on the gun crimes. That is, whatever Brady they provided was likely focused on the tax case, not the gun one, because the gun charge was never going to be charged.
Until Leo Wise, who assured Judge Noreika that prosecutors had complied with Brady, decided that he was going to charge those gun crimes.
Particularly given DOJ’s increased focus on such things in recent years after some really big Brady violations, a serious Brady violation is one of the few things that would actually give Merrick Garland cause to shut down David Weiss as Special Counsel.
The declination decision, turned over a month after the indictment, isn’t that, yet. For Leo Wise, who assured the judge in this case that all Brady had been turned over, however, it’s a detail that might be more convenient if treated as proof they weren’t going to charge gun crimes before they did.
Over a week ago, NBC’s Gary Grumbach emailed me to figure out how he could access the then still-sealed warrant dockets I liberated.
To the best of my knowledge, neither he nor anyone else at NBC reported that the dockets revealed that David Weiss first obtained a warrant to search Hunter Biden’s iCloud content and a laptop attributed to him for evidence relating to the gun charges on December 4, 81 days after indicting him. Indeed, besides me, only right wing outlets (Fox, NYPost, Washington Examiner) reported on the warrant.
The existence of the warrant was first disclosed as part of a legal fight (MTD; response; reply) over whether David Weiss charged Hunter Biden only because pressure from Donald Trump and Jim Jordan generated threats that led Weiss to fear for the safety of his family.
Q Do you have concerns for the safety of individuals working in your office?
A Sure. I have safety concerns for everybody who has worked on the case, and we want to make sure that folks — yeah, folks are encouraged to do what they need to do with respect to the pursuit of justice generally and they not be intimidated in any way from performing their responsibilities.
Q Do you have concerns that the threats and harassment employees have received are intended to intimidate them into not doing their jobs?
A I really can’t speak to the intention of any actor in this realm. I just know that these — that certain actions have been taken by individuals, doxing, and, you know, threats that have been made, and that gives rise to concern. We’ve got to be able to do our jobs. And, sure, people shouldn’t be intimidated, threatened, or in any way influenced by others who — again, I don’t know what their motives are, but we’re just trying to do a public service here, so —
Q Have you yourself been the subject of any threats or harassment?
A I’ve certainly received messages, calls, emails from folks who have not been completely enamored of my — with my role in this case.
Q Do you have concerns for your safety or that of your family because of these threats?
A You know, I’m not — for myself, I’m not particularly concerned. Certainly I am concerned, as any parent or spouse would be for — yeah, for family, yep.
The fact that, in five years of investigating Hunter Biden, in the over two years after Hunter Biden’s book came out, David Weiss never obtained a warrant to search the iCloud content that he already had in possession for evidence to support gun charges (and also never sent the gun to the FBI lab for testing) is pretty compelling evidence that he never intended to charge Hunter for gun crimes until Donald Trump elicited threats that led Weiss to fear for the safety of his family. In his response, Weiss claims it is a Hollywood plot that such threats might lead him to renege on his decision to deal with the gun crime as part of a diversion agreement, making light of the same threats that, he told Congress, led him to be “concerned, as any parent or spouse would be for — yeah, for family, yep.”
This is unbelievably scandalous — that in the middle of a presidential campaign, Donald Trump ginned up threats against a prosecutor and then, for the first time, after the statute of limitations expired, that prosecutor sought new evidence to prosecute Joe Biden’s son.
Yet Gary Grumbach doesn’t think that’s newsworthy.
Instead, Grumbach is focused on important things: like whether Joe Biden will visit his son on his birthday.
According to the property receipt that has been posted publicly (but not, as far as I know, been made available as separate PDF), FBI Special Agent Josh Wilson signed the receipt for a hard drive and laptop obtained from John Paul Mac Isaac. The date is obscure, but consistent with receipt on December 9, 2019.
The admittedly inconsistently dark case file on that form, as right wing frothers never tire of pointing out, is a money laundering case file, 272D-BA-3065729.
According to the warrant return I liberated this week, on December 13, 2019, Josh Wilson received the hard drive and laptop again. He received the laptop not from an evidence locker, where it might normally go while an agent gets Office of Enforcement Operations approval and then gets a warrant from a magistrate judge, but from a Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) Computer Analyst named Mike Waski.
The warrant I liberated is not for money laundering. The only crimes listed on Attachment B are tax crimes: 26 USC 7201, 26 USC 7203, and 26 USC 7206(1).
According to the notes Gary Shapley took after it became clear that, after sharing the laptop with the FBI, John Paul Mac Isaac shared a copy with Rudy Giuliani, after Josh Wilson took possession of the hard drive and laptop (a second time), the hard drive, at least, went back to CART — this time, a CART Agent named Eric Overly.
In spite of the fact that Shapley made these notes in order to explain precisely what happened with the laptop, Shapley doesn’t mention where the laptop was between December 9, 2019, when Josh Wilson took possession from JPMI and December 13, 2019, when Josh Wilson took possession again.
Joseph Ziegler returned the warrant on January 30, 2020. But it wasn’t until March before the FBI got an image of the laptop (though this may have been after a filter team review). Josh Wilson got that personally, too.
Putting two carts before the horse is not normal, here. When the FBI accepts a laptop, even if it is being used in multiple investigations, they image it once and then — as ultimately happened here, probably multiple times — they obtain new warrants for the same device, first for the tax investigation, then for a FARA investigation, and finally, 81 days after indicting the President’s son for gun crimes, for a gun investigation.
But this laptop, Hunter Biden’s laptop, went from the blind computer repairman to Josh Wilson to CART to Josh Wilson and then back to CART.
I currently have theories why that happened. But no answers.
I’ve asked David Weiss’ spox for clarification about zscoreUSA’s observation: why the caption for the warrant obtained last month lists a different device serial number for the laptop:
Then the laptop for the actual laptop obtained from JPMI, which is what appears in the Attachments that were only released pursuant to Judge Maryellen Noreika’s orders after I made some follow-up calls.
The serial numbers are just off by two characters:
David Weiss’ spox hasn’t acknowledged that inquiry. This could be a typo or, as was suggested, FBI Agent Boyd Pritchard may have used the serial number for a laptop into which (as Shapley described) FBI dropped the removable hard drive from the laptop obtained from JPMI. In that case, it would normally note that the laptop contained the hard drive liberated from a prior laptop.
Perhaps all this will get sorted if and when Abbe Lowell makes good on his promised suppression motion. But until then, I only have theories, not answers.
I’m going to write two posts on Hunter Biden’s reply motions in his gun case. Here are all the relevant filings:
This post will address the point I made here: Abbe Lowell is managing eight different legal challenges for Hunter Biden that, with the exception of the Patrick Byrne defamation suit, all interrelate. He seems to be managing them to optimize timing and information collection.
This totally ugly illustration captures how I’ve begun to think of these (anyone remember Howard Johnson motels?).
The most immediate threat against Hunter Biden is the stuff in the middle: the threat of imprisonment in the (so far) twin prosecutions of him; I’ve included a column to allow for the possibility that David Weiss is still considering more. But that threat exists within — indeed, Lowell argues in his selective prosecution motion, was demanded — as part of the larger GOP impeachment and election effort. Lowell has responded to those threats with lawsuits — a countersuit against John Paul Mac Isaac, hacking lawsuits against Garrett Ziegler and Rudy Giuliani (all three are marked in blue), and a gross negligence lawsuit against the IRS (in green) — that will or may provide a second way of collecting information, outside the prosecutions.
For example, countersuing JPMI provided a way to get the data the blind computer repairman had shared with the FBI and the rest of the world, as well as to subpoena Apple (data obtained in discovery may parallel that subpoena). The judge in that case has stayed some nuisance subpoenas from JPMI targeting Hunter’s family, and dueling motions for summary judgement are all briefed for a hearing. If Lowell succeeds with his argument that JPMI violated Delaware law by snooping through a laptop the computer repairman claims was dropped off by Hunter Biden before sharing it with the FBI and the GOP, it would destabilize Weiss’ prosecutions (both of which, given the December warrant, build off it) and impeachment (in which the GOP has been relying on a hard drive they were withholding from Democrats). Not only did that countersuit make lawsuits against Rudy Giuliani and Garrett Ziegler possible, but if Lowell prevails, then those lawsuits will become a lot more precarious for the men who destroyed Hunter’s life if those suits survive a joint motion to dismiss hearing — largely based on venue and the applicability of Lowell’s hacking theory — in March.
That’s important background to the new motion to compel filed yesterday, which follows on two other efforts to gather information — a motion to subpoena Trump and others, and a motion for discovery. Among other things, that motion asks David Weiss to describe specifically where in the Apple data his team obtained the texts cited in his response to Hunter’s selective prosecution claim. As I alluded to yesterday, not only do the July 2020 warrants almost certainly build off the laptop in a way that Weiss seems to be trying to obscure, but the way in which and timing that devices were embedded within the laptop may pose some interesting legal problems for the government, particularly given that the warrants aspire to obtain attribution information that (thus far at least) Weiss’ team seems blissfully unconcerned with. While that same motion suggests it is seeking expert reports about the gun, if Weiss plans to rely on evidence obtained directly or indirectly from the laptop, he’s going to have to call the guy who, JPMI claims, was trying to boot it up before obtaining a warrant on December 9, 2019, as well as the “computer guy” who didn’t bother to check when files were added to the laptop for 10 months after receiving it, precisely the kind of attribution information that would be critical to actually admitting any of it as evidence.
Relatedly, Lowell has also promised a motion to suppress the laptop evidence.
The search warrant on December 4, 2023, which post-dates the firearm indictment by almost three months, is the first time in the course of this five-year investigation that DOJ obtained a warrant to search the alleged laptop (and iCloud account and backup data) for evidence of federal firearms violations. The prosecution then used that warrant to purportedly review and seize, for the first time, text messages, photos, and other evidence in support of its felony charges, several of which the prosecution cited in its pleadings on January 16, 2024. (See DE 68 at 8–9.) Moreover, that warrant contained testimony (in support of finding probable cause) about the firearm obtained from a witness in a grand jury empaneled in the Central District of California in November 2023 after this indictment had already been brought. Accordingly, the issue raised—as a result of the prosecution’s recent filings—is one to explore at the evidentiary hearing Mr. Biden requested (DE 64) and a motion to suppress which will be filed promptly.
Partly, this motion to suppress will be a complaint about Weiss’ post-indictment use of a California grand jury in this case (a complaint that, by itself, likely wouldn’t work). But there are other parts of even what I can see in the warrant that make it ripe for challenge. At the very least, defending a motion to suppress will force the government to commit to certain technical claims that, thus far at least, they appear to be dodging.
The motion to compel also asks Judge Noreika to get a commitment from Special Counsel that they have provided all Brady evidence. As it is, Weiss’ team is adhering to a far stingier discovery standard than Jack Smith is and Robert Mueller and the post-Mueller Mike Flynn challenge did. But there are things out there — the most notable of which is the Perfect Phone call between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the most important of which are the threats that David Weiss and his team received before he reneged on a plea deal — that Lowell likely can argue are solidly Brady which, from the sounds of things, Weiss has not provided. Lowell has, thus far, not called out Derek Hines for claiming it would take a Hollywood plot to explain how the political pressure ginned up by a guy who has elicited dangerous threats against every prosecutor and judge deemed to be adversarial to him might have led David Weiss to renege on a deal. Hines’ silence about those threats basically amounts to license, given by an AUSA, for stochastic terrorists to target all his AUSA colleagues. I’ve been puzzled that Lowell has never mentioned these threats — except in passing in the selective prosecution reply — but wonder whether Lowell is simply leaving it there for Weiss to fail to mention with the repercussions that will have on the case.
Litigating a motion to suppress and a motion to compel will also delay any trial in this case, assuming none of these motions to dismiss work. Those are not Lowell’s only bid for delay. In the reply challenging that the gun charges against him are unconstitutional, Lowell responded to Weiss’ optimism that SCOTUS will review other gun cases by bidding to stay the entire gun trial: “this Court should await that guidance from the Supreme Court before allowing this case to proceed to trial.” That’s probably not going to work, but Lowell’s Bruen-related challenge will ensure that Weiss can’t close up shop until the constitutional question is decided. More interestingly, given the tight schedule Judge Mark Scarsi has set in the Los Angeles case, with a trial scheduled for June, delays in Delaware (assuming the case is not dismissed) could have the effect of putting the tax case before the gun case.
As I’ll show in a post on the selective prosecution claim, such a claim may work better in the tax case than the gun one.
Potential delay may be one point of Lowell’s challenge to both the manner of David Weiss’ appointment as Special Counsel and his funding for it. In his reply, Lowell claims that Weiss has responded to the challenge by arguing that Weiss would have been able to prosecute Hunter as US Attorney for Delaware, so there’s no legal problem with doing so as Special Counsel.
In response to both the lack of authorization and lack of appropriation issues, the Special Counsel claims the Court should let him go ahead and prosecute this case in the wrong way because he believes he could find a right way to prosecute the case if he wanted to. Opp. at 20. With respect to his lack of authorization to bring the case as Special Counsel, Mr. Weiss claims that he could have brought the case in his capacity as U.S. Attorney even though he did not. Opp. at 22– 23 (conceding that he signed the indictment as “Special Counsel,” rather than bringing it in his capacity as U.S. Attorney). Perhaps Mr. Weiss could resign as U.S. Attorney and seek to be reappointed as Special Counsel, consistent with DOJ regulations, and then seek to indict Mr. Biden again. Perhaps he could find a way to prosecute this case with the costs and expenses of gathering new evidence that was not obtained in violation of the Appropriations Clause as well (see supra at 15). But such issues are premature as he has done none of those things. It is telling that Mr. Weiss’s last argument is that, if all else fails, he can put back on his U.S. Attorney hat, change the nameplate on his door, and start again
But that’s the point of the appropriations clause aspect of the challenge; Lowell argues that Weiss would have to go back and collect new evidence (testing the pouch the gun was found in for cocaine residue, getting new grand jury testimony, and getting a warrant to use laptop content for the gun crimes) without violating the appropriations clause. I don’t like this motion nor do I think it will work. But by making an appropriations clause challenge, Lowell may be able to enjoin certain things — like issuing a final report, replete as John Durham’s was with fabrications — until any appeals are exhausted.
Which brings me to the claim that the diversion agreement must be honored and the related discovery motion. Those are the arguments I’ve always thought stood the best chance (though the briefing on it has devolved into a squabble about language). In the body of the latter argument, Lowell notes that Weiss’ claims he was always considering charging Hunter doesn’t defeat Hunter’s claims, because he ultimately decided not to, before he changed his mind for no apparent reason.
The prosecution’s response to Mr. Biden’s motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution further confirms the need for discovery should the Court not dismiss the indictment outright. The prosecution claims that its reasons for charging this case were based on “overwhelming evidence” (DE 68 at 2, 24) it obtained in 2019 and 2021, and on the unexplained “deterrent effect” (DE 68 at 33, 40–41) that it claims this prosecution of Mr. Biden serves. And the prosecution suggests “it had been considering” charging Mr. Biden “long before plea negotiations began.” (DE 68 at 17, 40, 48.) But this explanation is entirely pretextual because— even with all these factors in play—the prosecution still determined that the appropriate resolution was a diversion on the gun charge and a probationary sentence on two tax misdemeanors. The prosecution even signed a Diversion Agreement and Plea Agreement to that effect, and openly advocated for the Court to adopt the Plea Agreement at the July 26, 2023 hearing. What the prosecution has not explained is why it deemed this agreed upon resolution of its issues with Mr. Biden appropriate on July 26, 2023, but chose to abandon that approach and charge Mr. Biden with multiple gun and tax felonies afterward. It is undisputed that extremist Republicans criticized the prosecution’s deal heavily, and since then, House Republicans have declared that pressure is what caused the prosecution to reverse course. The fact that the prosecution’s explanation for its charging decision does not explain why it chose to change its proposed resolution of the dispute does nothing to show those House Republicans are wrong to claim causing the prosecution to reverse course.
Then a completely predictable footnote notes that the efforts to collect new evidence after indicting raise more questions about Weiss’ claims than they answer.
1 The prosecution’s opposition briefs reveal some new evidentiary issues (e.g., seizing electronic evidence for the gun charges for the first time pursuant to a December 4, 2023 warrant; using a grand jury in California in connection with the tax case to elicit evidence for already-indicted gun charges in Delaware; seeking a search warrant in December 2023 to search for evidence in support of its charges three months after having charged; testing a leather pouch for cocaine residue in October 2023 that it had in its possession for five years; denying there was Probation’s approval for the diversion agreement) in addition to those raised in Mr. Biden’s motions to dismiss themselves (e.g., how a Delaware agreement for a diverted gun charge and two tax misdemeanors turned into multiple felonies in two jurisdictions following massive political pressure to do just that). Based on the prosecution’s admissions made only recently in its filings, Mr. Biden will expeditiously file a motion to suppress improperly gathered evidence.
This is what I pointed out: Admitting that you never sent the gun to the lab until weeks after indicting the case is a confession that you were never really going to prosecute it until Jim Jordan demanded you do so.
And the excuse offered in the filing — that an FBI agent first saw cocaine residue when taking a picture of the weapon — is debunked by the fact that Weiss received photos of the weapon in the case file he has had for years.
The prosecution produced a Delaware state police case file, which includes a summary of an interview Mr. Biden gave police in October 2018 and other information about the purchase, discard, and recovery of the firearm, as well as evidence photos from its case file. [my emphasis]
They didn’t need a new photo. They have photos! They needed evidence they didn’t bother to seek in the over five years since the gun was seized.
But all that comes against the background of three arguments about how and why the plea deal fell apart, something that Weiss has very assiduously avoided. In the diversion reply, Lowell argues that judicial estoppel prohibits Weiss from claiming the diversion agreement is not valid because Leo Wise stood before Judge Noreika and made assurances about the degree to which the diversion would protect Hunter’s rights. In the selective prosecution reply, Lowell reminds Judge Noreika that her concerns with the plea deal were not that it was not draconian enough, but rather, whether Hunter would be protected to the extent he understood he would be.
The Court did not accept the Plea Agreement that day, but the Court was clear: “I’m not saying I’m not going to reject the plea, I’m not saying I’m going to accept the Plea Agreement. I need more information.” (7/26/23 Tr. at 109.) The Court expressed no concern with whether the parties had struck a fair bargain, rather the concern the Court expressed to Mr. Biden was with “making sure that your plea gets you what you think it gets.” (Id. at 108.) The Court wanted assurances that the immunity provision in the Diversion Agreement that would have the Court decide whether Mr. Biden had breached his obligations under the Diversion and Plea Agreements before the prosecution could charge Mr. Biden with conduct that would otherwise be immunized was constitutional. (Id. at 105–06.) In other words, the Court’s concern was with making sure that Mr. Biden received the benefit of the bargain that he struck, not with changing that bargain to be more punitive against Mr. Biden.
At the end of that filing, Lowell describes how David Weiss sat in the back of Judge Noreika’s courtroom, watching Leo Wise advocate for measures (negotiated by Lesley Wolf before Wise was brought in) to protect Hunter.
On July 26, 2023, Mr. Weiss sat right behind his prosecution team when they urged this Court to accept those agreements.
As of today, the motion for a subpoena for Trump has been fully briefed for 50 days, but Judge Noreika has not addressed it.
Indeed, the only thing we’ve heard from Judge Noreika since she granted Lowell’s request for a delay to do all this briefing on October 19 was her order granting my request to unseal the Apple warrants in this case (And thanks to Judge Noreika and her courtroom deputy and the clerks who scrambled to make it possible for doing so). That is, it’s not clear yet what she makes of these competing arguments.
But it is absolutely the case that Leo Wise stood before her and made certain representations about the plea deal. And my impression at least accords with Lowell’s: that her concerns arose from protecting Hunter Biden’s rights, not granting Jim Jordan the head of the President’s son.
Judge Noreika could just rule that the diversion agreement is binding (which as noted in my ugly table, will have interesting repercussions for the LA case). She could order an evidentiary hearing, granting the long-briefed motion for subpoenas.
Based on reports, in the initial appearance in the LA case, Judge Scarsi implied he’d be cautious against granting discovery about deliberations (presumably including the recommendation Los Angeles US Attorney Martin Estrada’s top prosecutors made about problems with the case). But he sounded more amenable to discovery about other topics — possibly the threats that Derek Hines treats as a Hollywood plot, including threats targeting Estrada.
In three weeks, Abbe Lowell will file most of these same motions before Scarsi, and if any work — especially the selective prosecution one — it might make the Delaware one unsustaintable as well.
Again, I’m not saying these will work. Selective prosecution has been made all but impossible to argue, for example.
But I am saying that Lowell is increasing his chances for success.
As a few of you have noted, Hunter Biden has filed his replies on his motions to dismiss.
As I noted on Xitter, the Reply on Discovery confirms I was right when I pointed out that the Coke-in-Gun ploy actually undermined David Weiss’ argument.
They never bothered to send the gun out for testing until October 2023 — five years after local authorities decided not to charge this.
I’m finishing up my initial review and will comment at more length, but here are all these filings:
In addition, Abbe Lowell filed a motion to compel.