Hunter Biden Prosecutor Derek Hines Confesses He Failed To Do Basic Due Diligence, Again

I’ve written about how David Weiss’ prosecutors indicted Hunter Biden before they had taken basic investigative steps — like obtaining a warrant to search the President’s son’s digital data for evidence of gun crimes, or sending the gun to the FBI lab for testing, or figuring out what the evidence actually showed.

But wow, this one is a doozy.

Prosecutors just filed a late Motion in Limine (it was signed by Derek Hines, the sloppier of two sloppy AUSAs calling themselves Senior Assistant Special Counsels), seeking to prevent Hunter Biden from introducing evidence about how the guys at the gun store belatedly added information to the form on which he allegedly lied. They want to prevent Hunter’s team from telling the jury about how three years after the purchase, people in the gun store added information to the form to make it look like they had properly demanded a second form of identification after Hunter used his passport to buy a gun.

In other words, the original scanned form

 

 

Differs from the physical form that prosecutors would need to submit at trial.

 

The government says — citing what they claim is an interview with the gun shop owner, Ronald Palimere — that the gun store guy insists the original form is accurate (and it may well be).

Following the hearing on May 14, 2024, the government interviewed Palimere on May 16, 2024. Exh. 2. He confirmed that Certified Form 4473 was the accurate version of the form as it existed on the date the defendant purchased his firearm:

For the sale to Biden, all the fields completed on the certified 4473 were done before Biden left the store. . . Palimere scanned and emailed the certified 4473 to Reisch . . . The form was then filed away. Palimere did not handle the form again for three years and until he was requested to turn it over to ATF SA Veronica Hnat on September 23, 2021.

Id. at p. 3. According to the report, before he produced the form to ATF SA Hnat:

Palimere decided to write Delaware registration in the box labeled 18.b. Palimere does not know why that was chosen but he knew it had to be an official document and it was all they could think of. Turner was the one who wrote Delaware vehicle registration in the box. Palimere thinks that if Biden presented a vehicle registration on the day of the sale, it would have been documented on the certified 4473.

Id. at p. 4. With respect to annotating box 18.b., the report of Palimere’s interview states:

No one thought to get supplemental information because everyone in the area knows who lives at [the defendant’s father’s address]. The address is a celebrity address. At the time and to Palimere and the employees, the address was obvious. If a second form of identification with an address was presented by Biden, Palimere was not present when it happened.

Id. at p. 2. [my emphasis]

Only, these brain surgeons didn’t include Palimere’s interview 302. Exhibit 2 is, instead, the 302 from a guy named Gordon Cleveland — the guy who sold Hunter the gun. He told the FBI that he thinks Hunter got some kind of additional record, but “can not say with certainty.” But he “would not have paid attention to the paperwork side of the sale” because he had already made the sale.

In other words, the guy who sold Hunter Biden the gun testified that he didn’t much care about the paperwork.

Palimere’s described testimony (that no one bothered getting secondary ID because everyone knew Hunter’s father) is inconsistent with Cleveland’s (who claimed maybe he got the Delaware Registration).

The word “impeach” does not appear in this MIL. Instead, prosecutors complain that Palimere — the guy whose 302 they apparently didn’t provide — is not on trial and Hunter Biden shouldn’t be able to put him on trial.

Palimere is not on trial. Nor does his decision to annotate the Form 4473 years after the defendant bought his gun change anything the defendant did in 2018.

And while David Weiss’ guys are demanding that Hunter not get any extensions, they’re asking for one to clear this up.

1 The defense did not raise this issue until a hearing on May 14 and the government respectfully requests leave to file its motion in limine after the May 13 deadline imposed by the Court.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s team is trying to subpoena these gun shop guys (Palimere, Cleveland), apparently thus far with no success.

Prosecute Hunter Biden, if you must. But for goodness sake, please try to exercise the most basic due diligence before you do so.

Update: David Weiss’ crack team has now submitted the exhibit they wanted to submit, as opposed to the one they did: the 302 from a video teleconference interview with gun shop owner Ronald Palimere. It revealed a number of things:

  1. Palimere has a proffer agreement, seemingly offering a gun shop owner legal protection for failures to fill out gun forms properly so long as his testimony is deemed truthful. In other words, David Weiss is now in the position of prosecuting Hunter for a 5-year old gun crime rather than doing anything about a gun shop owner who fudges on paperwork.
  2. The interview was conducted by Derek Hines and an FBI Agent Erika Jensen, with no second FBI Agent present. Jensen did the follow-up interview with Cleveland, linked above, by herself.  Jensen is the witness through whom prosecutors want to introduce all the digital evidence, which means she’ll have to take the stand and therefore be available for questioning based on these 302s.
  3. Derek Hines told Palimere that Agent Jensen found the discrepancies with the gun form, not Hunter Biden’s lawyers. That’s not a big deal, yet (the FBI is allowed to lie to witnesses), but could become one.
  4. In the filing, Hines relies on Palimere’s testimony to claim that, “For the sale to Biden, all the fields completed on the certified 4473 were done before Biden left the store.” Except he also testified that he, “never interacted with Biden” because he was “in the back of the building.” I assume the store has security cameras, but Palimere is not a direct witness to the documentation being completed while Hunter Biden was present. Jensen didn’t ask Cleveland (who is the witness they want to put on the stand) whether it was all completed while Hunter was still there.

Update: David Weiss has now gotten the DE Clerk to memory hole the Cleveland 302 that substantially conflicts with that of his boss.

Update: Judge Noreika has approved the subpoenas Hunter Biden’s team asked for, including (but not limited to) the gun shop employees, including the guy who altered the document.

image_print
67 replies
  1. flounder says:

    Wouldn’t failure to collect the proper proof of identification on a federal form be a “gun crime”?

    • emptywheel says:

      Yup!!!

      And of course these guys have already confessed to doctoring evidence to make the sale, so how credible are they going to be when they claim Hunter is the one who claimed not to be an addict?

      • David F. Snyder says:

        Oh, the tangled web ….

        I’m sure Abbe will make good use of this for his client.

      • flounder says:

        Dang, prosecuting one person for filling out a form the wrong way and not another, for the same form even, would sure seem like selective prosecution.

        • Desidero says:

          Worse, I’d think – the gun shop has the legal responsibility of verifying proper gun sales procedures. They are legally tasked with preventing foul-ups.
          Imagine selling a 13-year-old alcohol – “but he showed me ID!!!” Won’t fly. But then giving the liquor store immunity to testify against the kid?

      • Shadowalker says:

        This case keeps getting more and more bizarre. Didn’t the ATF investigate this in 2018 when it happened? The agents didn’t pick that up?

      • bloopie2 says:

        Oh, I’d guess about as credible as Michael Cohen, who is an admitted liar and thief and criminal in things closely related to the subject matter of his testimony in the case against Trump.

        • bloopie2 says:

          Speaking of credibility. I was reading this Lawfare article about why NY State proceeded with the hush money trial after he Feds did not (witness credibility is their guess).

          https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-did-federal-prosecutors-drop-trump's-hush-money-case

          and after a while I gave up, because all I could think of was my mother’s “second rule of voting” (first rule was, if the government wants something from you, say “no”.) Second rule: They’re all crooks.

          Are there current big cases related to Trump, elections, etc., that aren’t loaded down with Mom’s “crooks”, with liars and grifters? Oh, for the relative nicety of “Music Man”, or “The Flim-Flam Man”, where the con left behind something good.

        • dmbeaster says:

          So what. Under your standard, criminals who flip of bosses should never be believed in any case. Meanwhile, thousands are convicted in that manner. Maybe there is something wrong with your analysis.

          Cohen lied for that criminal Trump, and his story is corroborated. Makes him very believable.

  2. John_11JUL2023_2057h says:

    Witnesses are always on trial guys, come on. But, if the prosecution scanned a doc but now has witnesses saying their scan is wrong….what else is wrong? Witnesses aren’t going to be the only ones on trial guys

    [Welcome to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We’ve moved to a minimum standard to support community security. You attempted to publish this as “John C”; you previously attempted to publish a comment as “John.” Neither name meets the site’s standard minimum. Your username has been temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]

  3. P J Evans says:

    “Palimere” or “Palmiere”? It keeps changing.
    Isn’t it normal to investigate *before* the charges are filed, to find out if there’s even a case?

  4. NYsportsfanSufferer says:

    Seems like a big deal, no?

    Literally 67% of the case is this form and it’s tampered with.. and worse one of the witnesses says he didn’t care about the paperwork.

    And when did they tamper with it? Before or after the memoir came out?

  5. klynn says:

    Any chance Palimere was “gently guided” to fill that in? (Evidence tampering?)

    I mean if he didn’t care about the paperwork, how did he even notice it was missing a second form of ID? (Sarcasm implied.)

    • zscoreUSA says:

      What was the deal with the series of subpoenas yesterday? Did someone not file something properly?

      • Shadowalker says:

        That could be because the prosecutor is used to having the defendant to plead guilty and no reason to have a trial. Thus being rusty in actually trying a case. I heard a TV lawyer make a remark about that happening (especially federal prosecutors). So we end up with things like sawdust or any of the other problems with this case.

      • emptywheel says:

        I think it’s how one gets subpoenas in DE. It’s different (and shows up differently) in every District.

        So Hunter now has subpoenas for the gun shop guys, DOT, and the witnesses prosecutors want to bring.

  6. Wirenaut says:

    “With respect to annotating box 18.b. …”

    an·no·tate
    /ˈanəˌtāt/
    verb
    add notes to (a text or diagram) giving explanation or comment.

    The form was not annotated, it was altered.

  7. freebird says:

    So, the gun store should not have sold Hunter the gun due to improper identification which would have made this case moot. Now, the prosecutors are spending millions to convict on a sloppy gun shop clerk.

  8. zscoreUSA says:

    Ohhhhh good lord. ECF 158 includes the beginning of Chapter 10 in Beautiful Things, which was glaringly left out of the Exhibit filing last week.

    Whole passage with the phrasing: “I came back east…. I had returned that fall…”. Which doesn’t mention “October ” , but the prosecution filing did mention “October”.

    And footnote:

    “Page 203 was inadvertently omitted from the government’s excerpts at Doc. No. 119-1. The government includes this single page in Exhibit 1 to this filing (it is the only page added to the submission at 119-1).

    Do these prosecutors read this website ? This is almost a direct response.

  9. PensionDan says:

    I’m not seeing an argument for the ‘annotated’ 4473 being inadmissible in the 5/20 motion. I do see why it’s inconvenient for the prosecution.
    Also, did Hunter Biden have a Delaware vehicle registration?

    • originalK says:

      The first of the “subpoena(s) returned unexecuted” (doc. #139) is for a vehicle registration record. Don’t quote me, but I think the Cleveland 302 described Hunter driving a Cadillac STS, but the Ablow texts describe a truck lock box.

      And the (scandalous) repayments for the Ford Raptor are from that fall too, maybe?
      (If so, another sign of sobriety and yet more evidence of Bidens living their pro-union principles.)

    • Rugger_9 says:

      I was wondering about that as well, because IIRC it’s about when the defense team determined the gap’s importance (i.e. by finding out about the 302), not when the form was forwarded to Lowell. However, IANAL.

      Whether Weiss’ team has to explain themselves now or later is irrelevant. I say this because there is zero real chance that SC Weiss will not force this to trial even if all they have left is pure innuendo. That trial will not occur before the election in all likelihood so Faux and the rest of the RW Wurlitzer can scream about alleged Biden iniquities.

      Hopefully Lowell is also protecting the record for later appeals if it comes to that outcome.

  10. Frank Probst says:

    So not only does my usual rant about 302s go here [insert usual rant], but I now have to rant about the government submitting the WRONG 302? OMFG this case is absurd!

  11. Troutwaxer says:

    I can’t imagine being a juror at this trail and taking the prosecution seriously… assuming Lowell does his job!

    Of course, I’m not the person I’m preaching too!

    • `HarryEagar says:

      That was my first thought.

      My second is a question: would it be possible to prosecute without the form? I would suspect not.

  12. zscoreUSA says:

    Technical question: is SMS only a text message? Can an SMS be sent from a laptop?

    On the chart of texts/iMessages, there iMessages from Hunter’s iCloud email sourced as Laptop Messages. There are also SMS messages from Hunter sourced to Laptop Messages that don’t list an email or last 4 digits of a cell phone.

    There are messages from the XS that was backed up to the laptop, sourced to Laptop (iTunes) which list last 4 digits of redacted cell phone number. And messages from same source that list the redacted @icloud email.

    Separate messages from the @rspdc email (contact named Hunter) sourced to iCloud (03). And messages from the @icloud email (contact named Robert Biden) sourced to iCloud (03).

    • algebraist says:

      That depends entirely on how the phone was configured with iCloud. It is possible to get Messages on a mac laptop to send SMS via the phone. Whether that was properly configured is another matter.

      iCloud Sync between devices is also a factor here. I’ve had SMS sync before, even though the device in question was slightly misconfigured.

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m going to come back to what the summary doc might say about Hunter’s laptops. But you raise some of the same questions I am thinking of.

    • EuroTark says:

      Technical question: is SMS only a text message? Can an SMS be sent from a laptop?

      Technical answer: It’s complicated, but mainly due to shifting semantics. The Short Message(/-ing) Service and was originally designed to take advantage of lulls in voice traffic to route data-traffic containing text messages. This was colloquially known as text messaging. Today the SMS standard has been co-opted into something entirely else, starting (I believe) with Apple’s iMessage system, and nowadays even Android phones actually don’t use SMS for (most of) the default text messaging. Then there is the plethora of other ubiquitous messaging applications like WhatsApp and (Facebook) Messenger or other direct messaging components of other apps.

      While technical-oriented people might differentiate between a native telephony service SMS and an application provided text message, it’s safe to assume that most people don’t.

      A normal consumer would have to rely on a phone in order to send a SMS, but from early on there existed gateways that allowed people with the right access the ability to originate messages. AFAIK these could/can bypass authentication as to sender. Ie, someone with terminal access to a telephony server could spoof SMS text messages. Similarly, they aren’t sent encrypted, so someone with access to one of the the towers or servers enroute could intercept messages.

      Apple’s iMessage protocol is something entirely different though.

        • EuroTark says:

          FWIW, here in Europe many mobile carriers in the early 2000s would have a web-portal where you could log in to send SMS messages that would originate from your phone number. I don’t think there was any way to read messages though.

  13. Sussex Trafalgar says:

    Another excellent piece by EW!

    My concern is that if the Garland led DOJ tries to correct all the apparent mistakes made by Weiss and Co., the voting public might think the Jack Smith prosecution of Trump is as messed up as this Weiss prosecution of HB appears to be.

    And a lot of Republicans involved in the 2024 campaign for Trump, including down ballot Republicans running for office, might like to see a Weiss prosecution disaster negatively affect Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump.

    • Just Some Guy says:

      That’d be like saying Durham’s 0-2 is reflective of Jack Smith’s efforts, which have yet to be tried. And Durham’s whiffs aren’t usually interpolated to reflect on the record of federal prosecutors as a whole, which is a batting average (excuse the analogy) so overwhelmingly one-sided it makes Ted Williams’ .401 look pathetic.

      To drop the analogy, public perception and opinion shouldn’t be the main, driving factor behind any DoJ prosecution in my opinion. Of course it’s probably one of many factors. And these are special counsel prosecutions, too. But I don’t think it’s anything more than a huge stretch to equate Smith with Weiss.

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        My only concern is whether the voting public knows Weiss and Co. have apparently made numerous questionable decisions and mistakes, while Jack Smith has made few, if any, mistakes.

        I personally know the difference between Weiss and Smith and their respective cases.

        My concern is that the voting public won’t pay attention and conduct enough research to know the difference when it comes time to vote.

        I hope a vast majority of the voting public do not simply believe both Weiss and Smith are incompetent and, therefore, don’t believe or trust either one of their respective prosecutions.

        • Just Some Guy says:

          Also I want to add that given special counsel status, I don’t think it’s up to Garland to correct Weiss. He certainly didn’t correct Durham.

          I don’t think any effort to link Weiss’s shenanigans to Smith would be successful, nor have I seen any evidence that anyone is trying.

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        Here’s some evidence:

        Judge Cannon has been issuing ham-handed Op/Ed type rulings slamming Jack Smith for the past three months, including the most recent one a couple of days ago.

        Second example, Trump and his MAGA allies have been slamming Jack Smith hard over the past year.

        Trump and his allies haven’t made a derogatory comment about Judge Cannon, and stopped making derogatory comments about Weiss and Co., after Weiss and Judge Noreika in Delaware decided to terminate the HB plea agreement.

        Judge Cannon and Trump’s goals are aligned to discredit Jack Smith and his investigation and prosecution.

        “Just Some Guy
        May 21, 2024 at 5:35 pm
        Also I want to add that given special counsel status, I don’t think it’s up to Garland to correct Weiss. He certainly didn’t correct Durham.

        I don’t think any effort to link Weiss’s shenanigans to Smith would be successful, nor have I seen any evidence that anyone is trying.”

        • Just Some Guy says:

          Reply to Sussex Trafalgar
          May 22, 2024 at 10:24 am

          What you posited in your initial post is that if Weiss’s prosecution of Hunter Biden implodes, it may be used in some way against Jack Smith’s prosecution of TFG.

          Thus the evidence isn’t just in efforts at negative attacks against Jack Smith from TFG and his allies (which of course there are plenty), but also in efforts to negatively portray Weiss’s prosecution of Hunter Biden. There is no evidence of the latter, for obvious reasons: TFG and his proxies view Weiss’s prosecution as politically useful for November, if not as outright revenge, so why would they point out Weiss’s flaws?

  14. coalesced says:

    To zscore, SMS including imessage can be sent from tablet, laptop, desktop, webbrowser, email, etc.

    • Codewalker says:

      Re: sms by email. Yes, through an email to text gateway. All that I use include a header, stating from where it originated.

  15. Krisy Gosney says:

    A personal note- it’s terrifying to see how ieasy it is to legally and with a judges approval to dance along the edges of fact and fairness to put someone in jail. Made more terrifying with HB being a person with power and money and the legal system can/will do this. Being sentenced to serious jail term while being innocent (HB may not be completely innocent) is a semi-irrational fear I have. I think others may too and that’s part of the pique and heat that some people give off when making comments.

    • emptywheel says:

      There are reasons why some of this evidence should be inadmissible. But there is also reason to trust juries. It may well be he is found guilty based on a fair consideration of the evidence.

      • bmaz says:

        True, but doesn’t necessarily mean he will be sentenced to incarceration if so. That was my point.

        • emptywheel says:

          I take your point. I was responding to Krisy Gosney, just trying to make clear that even with all the fuckery here, there are definitely ways a jury could fairly convict him and that doesn’t reflect on the jury, it reflects on the pretrial decisions.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          So bmaz, with the kind of bad evidence Weiss is bringing against HB, does a good lawyer always try to exclude it, or is it better to let it in and show the jury how the prosecution is screwing the client? And do you think that’s Lowell’s strategy?

          It seems to me that if you do adopt this strategy, you’ve got to let in all the pictures of tables saws (that is, all the crappy evidence.)

        • bmaz says:

          No, exclude it because some of it is critical to being able to prove up key counts. The less evidence you have to deal with, the better.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          Thanks for that bit of education. I appreciate it! If you wanted to write at length about how trial issues and strategy look from Lowell’s POV I’d be thrilled to read it.

Comments are closed.