Posts

What Jurors Noticed about Hallie Biden’s Testimony

/23 Comments/in , , /by

As I’ve said over and over, Hallie Biden was the most important prosecution witness against her brother-in-law.

In his close yesterday, Leo Wise described that Hallie’s testimony that she found remnants of crack cocaine in Hunter’s truck days after, according to Naomi Biden, it was clean, is compelling circumstantial evidence that Hunter smoked crack in the truck between those days.

And if you compare what Naomi Biden said that she returned the truck to her father clean on October 19th, 2018, that there were no drug remnants in it and there was no drug paraphernalia in it, to Hallie Biden’s testimony that she searched the truck on October 23rd, just a few days later, that she found drug remnants. Remember, the way she testified what a drug remnant is, is when you break pieces, smaller pieces of crack off a larger rock, a lot of it falls and breaks off, that’s what a remnant is, and that’s what Hallie Biden saw in that truck on October the 23rd, and she also found drug paraphernalia.

So what does that mean? What does a clean truck with no drug remnants and no drug paraphernalia on October 19th, as in the testimony of the defendant’s own daughter, and then a truck with drug remnants and drug paraphernalia on the October the 23rd, what does that mean?

Abbe Lowell attempted to pitch her testimony as more inconsistent than that, describing how key parts of her testimony might confuse what happened on October 23, 2018, when she found the gun, and earlier times when she had searched his truck, noting that her testimony that Hunter had spent that night with her was inconsistent with him calling her and then taking an Uber back to her house.

But even she said she did not see Hunter using drugs in this period. And said only that when she went into the truck on October 23rd, first she said there were remnants and paraphernalia, but then when asked said a dusting of powder, I guess. And when I asked her to be more specific and tell us whether those remnants were on the console, steering wheel, floor mats, or car seat, all do you remember she said is, I do not recall.

And when asked what type of paraphernalia, she again said, I do not recall.

Was she remembering what she saw that day or dozens of other days when she, too, was using, where that more likely than not happened, okay. But if you noticed, she could remember that which the prosecutors asked her, the prosecutors who also gave her immunity, but not so much for any number of things. When she saw Hunter when he came back from LA, even if it was on the day he came back to go with her at an appointment she had at a Caron rehabilitation center or facility, when she saw him — or when she saw him, whether it was October 22nd or 23rd, whether it was the night, whether it was the night before, whether it was the early morning or when. And you’ll remember that I asked her whether or not when I could refresh her recollection, did she know that she was not with him that morning. And do you remember when I had to do that by saying do you remember the reference to calling an Uber? And then she said yes. You don’t need an Uber to go from her driveway into the house.

Before he launched that section of his closing arguments, however, he evinced sympathy that Hallie was put into this situation in the first place.

Where else did they go? Poor Hallie Biden, who had to be dragged through this period of her life again, who understandably did not remember a lot of the details.

Poor Hallie Biden didn’t remember a lot of the details…

This is something that we won’t be able to measure, unless and until jurors speak publicly about their deliberations after a verdict. It’s one thing to have sympathy or no for Joe Biden’s son, who was known to have addiction problems in Delaware. It’s another thing to have sympathy for Hallie Biden, the widow of the state’s much better loved former Attorney General.

And that’s why something that happened the day Hallie testified is of interest.

It showed up publicly in this exchange with Leo Wise on redirect, something some journalists covering the trial found odd.

BY MR. WISE: Q. I just have a few questions, Ms. Biden. The first is were you married just this past weekend, recently?

A. Yes.

Q. And is your husband in the audience?

A. Yes.

Q. And at the breaks have you been looking at him and him looking at you?

A. Yes.

Q. Has any of that had anything to do with your — the substance of your testimony?

A. No, just support.

But two sidebars in the middle of Abbe Lowell’s cross-examination of Hallie explain the background to Wise’s comment: A juror had told Judge Noreika’s courtroom deputy that they had seen Hallie communicating with someone in the courtroom and seemed to find it suspicious.

THE COURT: So one of the jurors said to Mark when she was leaving that when we were over here at side-bar, that they noticed that she was communicating with someone in the back. Now, I don’t know if she has a lawyer here.

MR. HINES: She does.

MR. WISE: Well, it’s her husband. She got married this weekend and I can see him in back.

THE COURT: So she was communicating with someone. They were like mouthing something to her. My guess is it was something on the order of, you know —

MR. LOWELL: What a jerk I am.

THE COURT: My guess.

MR. LOWELL: Could you clean that one up. What a jerk I am. Thank you.

MR. HINES: No objection.

THE COURT: Okay. So they noticed — so one juror, it’s the second alternate, so we know we have the two younger women, so it’s one of them. And then she said to him — and you can ask Mark questions, too, she said to him and other jurors noticed, too.

MR. LOWELL: So I’m sorry to get this right, Mark, Mr. Buckson, the first — second alternate says it to you?

COURTROOM DEPUTY: She stays behind and says, “I have to talk to you a minute.”

MR. LOWELL: When she did, she said other jurors saw it, too?

COURTROOM DEPUTY: She told me what happened and said other jurors saw it, too.

This created two concerns: The juror had found the exchange suspicious. And jurors talked about it.

MR. LOWELL: Meaning that they talked about it.

THE COURT: That’s what I said to Mark, that’s why I want to tell you guys everything that they said. Now what I don’t know — my guess is, it was on the way out the door, so it wasn’t like they had talked about it in the jury room. It was probably one of those things where they were like this, you know, but I don’t know that.

MR. LOWELL: I understand

THE COURT: So if you guys want to ask, you can. So what I thought I would do is tell you now, even though I interrupted your lunch, so you can go back, you can figure out who the person was.

MR. WISE: I saw him.

MR. LOWELL: She also has her lawyer.

MR. WISE: I mean, if someone is mouthing like hang in there, doing, whatever it is, I’m guessing it’s the husband, I don’t think a lawyer is mouthing something.

THE COURT: I don’t know who she was doing it with. Maybe you can go figure out. Maybe you can find out what they are saying and you guys can figure out what you want to do if you want to talk to the jury or you want me to talk to the jury.

MR. LOWELL: Or maybe we let it be.

THE COURT: Let it be with a reminder that don’t talk to each other.

So Judge Noreika and the lawyers discuss how to address this — both the jurors discussing among themselves, and the impression of something suspect going on be allayed — without making the problem worse.

MR. WISE: My only concern if she think she’s being coached or something.

THE COURT: If she’s doing something improper.

MR. WISE: I don’t want that impression to be left on them.

MR. LOWELL: Unfortunately, to figure that out, you would have to start inquiring who were you talking to, what were you mouthing, what was he mouthing back, and that concerns me as much as, you know, as anything because why — how is that helpful, right.

Let’s figure out before we bring them back what is the least that is necessary, if anything, because if you start inquiring, how is that helpful, right, I don’t think that’s helpful. I understand you don’t want the jury to think she’s being coached, certainly not by my party.

MR. WISE: Right.

MR. LOWELL: But I wonder how do you do that with finesse. Nothing comes to my mind at the moment, but I’ll try to put my mind to it. Thank you for telling us. And right now I don’t have anything I would suggest, but I’ll talk to you all about it.

THE COURT: Maybe you guys, somebody can just check with her lawyer and husband and find out what that was.

MR. LOWELL: Thanks, Your Honor, for bringing it to our attention. (End of side-bar.)

COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

THE COURT: All right. So can I just see counsel for one second. (Side-bar discussion.)

THE COURT: So you want me to do what?

The agree that Judge Noreika will admonish the jurors not to talk to each other about the case. But that still left the problem of what to do with the appearance that someone might be coaching Hallie.

MR. LOWELL: I thought the, we talked, I think what we agreed was you don’t have to do it right away or whenever you would, it would just be the normal instructions to the jury just a reminder that you shouldn’t be talking to each other about the case, among yourselves of anything that’s happening, you have that, I don’t know exactly the words.

THE COURT: And then with respect to the discussions, are you okay if they just want to ask her, do you have someone here supporting you or something so the jury understands?

MR. LOWELL: I would object to that as somebody here supporting you.

THE COURT: Someone here —

MR. LOWELL: I mean, if you want to say do you have a relative — I mean, I don’t know. My view is do the least. But if you feel like something needs to be said. But I don’t know how that doesn’t make it worse.

MR. WISE: Was your impression that they thought it was something wrong going on?

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Kind of.

MR. WISE: Okay.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: It was a suspicious.

MR. LOWELL: Let’s say she has a relative, the problem, it still opens the door, what was your relative saying to you, were they just giving you a high five.

MR. WISE: The question would be Ms. Biden were you recently married, yes, just this week, is your husband here in audience to support you, yes.

MR. LOWELL: Not support you.

MR. WISE: Yeah, that’s what spouses do.

THE COURT: Is your husband here with you.

Leo Wise proposes to ask whether the person Hallie has been exchanging words of support with said anything about her testimony. I think that Lowell objected to this, though not vociferously.

MR. WISE: At the breaks, have you been looking at him and exchanging supportive words, has anyone been telling you what to testify about.

MR. LOWELL: I object to all those questions.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t object to has anyone told you what to testify.

MR. LOWELL: I mean in general, yeah.

MR. WISE: I don’t know what the prejudice is for her to say my husband is in the audience, I have been looking at him and he’s been looking at me for support.

MR. LOWELL: For support, how about I have been looking at him and he’s been looking at me.

THE COURT: And anything in that, was he telling you what to say, or something like that?

MR. WISE: Okay.

THE COURT: People are telling you what your testimony should be, something like that.

MR. WISE: Yeah.

THE COURT: Because I — look, I’m just concerned that the jury, there was nothing — I don’t think there is anything that she did wrong.

Over lunch, prosecutors confirmed that Hallie was exchanging comments with her spouse, whom she married the weekend before the trial.

MR. WISE: We confirmed with the lawyer, we said is she talking to you, no, no, the husband is here. He’s not going to obviously tell her anything about her testimony, but I am concerned that we’re leaving an impression with the jury that she’s doing something wrong, so if you just want to say, were you recently married, is your husband here with you, and then have you during breaks looked to him, and did anything that you do — any of your interactions about your testimony or something like that.

MR. WISE: Okay.

MR. LOWELL: Say that, were any of your interactions, sorry, were any of your interactions about your testimony.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LOWELL: Is that the phrase?

THE COURT: Yes. I was just trying to get at that it’s not influencing her testimony, but if there is a better word for that.

MR. WISE: I think maybe while you are on the stand.

THE COURT: Yes. While you were on the stand did you occasionally look to him, was any of that about your testimony?

MR. LOWELL: I mean —

THE COURT: I know, and you can object and if you have to object now.

Lowell again objects to any comment specifically about her spouse.

MR. LOWELL: Why don’t, we could that now, let me do it now. Yeah, I just think the more we inquire, the worse it gets, so I object to anything other than the instruction to the jury, telling them that you’re not supposed to be talking about the case before you deliberate.

THE COURT: I understand. The problem is that horse is out of the barn and I can instruct them on that going forward, but for this particular horse and barn, I don’t want the jury left with the impression that something nefarious was going on. I have enough issues with her testimony let alone something wrong.

MR. LOWELL: Let’s put this horse back in the barn, but can we do it with the fewest number of kicks to the side, to use the analogy.

THE COURT: Yes. I think that’s what it is, if you think there is a way that we can kick less, I took out support.

MR. LOWELL: Right.

THE COURT: I took out support and all I wanted to clarify is it didn’t have anything to do with — he doesn’t know anything about her testimony.

MR. LOWELL: But we don’t have to explain that.

THE COURT: Exactly.

MR. LOWELL: Okay. (End of side-bar. )

THE COURT: All right. We can bring in the jury.

Maybe Wise’s comment alleviated any concerns the jurors had about Hallie’s testimony. And who’s to say whether jurors thought someone coaching her would be on behalf of prosecutors or the defense?

But it’s the kind of thing that could significantly impact the impression jurors got of the testimony from the most important witness at trial.

Hallie Biden Was First Compelled to Testify against Hunter Biden in 2022

/11 Comments/in , , /by

Remember how I wrote about how Hallie Biden was being compelled to testify?

I described how prosecutors submitted a filing in Delaware on May 17 asking to keep some exhibits pertaining to the testimony a female witness sealed until after she testified.

The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, David. C. Weiss, Special Counsel, and Derek E. Hines and Leo J. Wise, Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Delaware, move that the enclosed filing be filed under seal as well as the accompanying proposed order and requested order from the court. The filing relates to a witness issue in the upcoming trial. The government will move to unseal this filing after the conclusion of the witness’s testimony at trial. In the interim, the government requests that the filings remain under seal to protect her identity from public disclosure so that her security is not compromised and so that there will be no witness intimidation issues that could undermine these proceedings. See United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1115 (3d Cir. 1985).

They filed an unsealed motion to compel Hallie Biden’s testimony in Los Angeles on May 21.

The Special Counsel hereby applies to this Honorable Court for an order compelling Hallie Biden to testify and produce evidence pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 6001 et seq., and respectfully represents as follows:

1. Hallie Biden has been subpoenaed to testify before this Court during trial beginning on June 20, 2024;

2. Counsel for Hallie Biden has advised that if Hallie Biden is called to the stand she will at that time refuse to answer questions, invoking the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination;

3. In the judgment of the Special Counsel, the testimony of Hallie Biden may be necessary to the public interest; and

4. Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg, an authorized Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States, has approved this application for an order instructing Hallie Biden to testify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002 and 28 C.F.R. § 0.175(a).

As noted, Stuart Goldberg, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s tax division, submitted authorization for that grant of immunity. His letter doing so is dated May 20, 2024.

Judge Noreika has now ordered unsealed the earlier exhibits tied to testimony. And as I suspected, it pertains to Hallie Biden. As in CA, the approval for compelling her testimony was signed by Goldberg. That earlier letter is dated April 11, 2022.

Of some interest: the order approving that immunity was signed by Judge Noreika, back on April 18, 2022.

That suggests Noreika may have been involved in this case for longer than was known. That might arise if, for example, a non-prosecution agreement (for someone like Zoe Kestan) were filed under seal before Noreika some time ago, and she got assigned Hunter’s case as a related case (though not such paperwork is in Hunter’s docket).

Note that Noreika’s order included tax charges, FARA, and gun charges. So the tax division approved compelling Hallie’s testimony for the gun charges.

Derek Hines’ motion to unseal the exhibits the exhibits notably did not unseal the motion regarding the immunity it in the first place, which remains sealed.

So it’s not clear — and Hines didn’t make it clear when he moved to seal the filing — why it was fine to submit the immunity paperwork publicly in California but not in Delaware.

The filing relates to a witness issue in the upcoming trial. The government will move to unseal this filing after the conclusion of the witness’s testimony at trial. In the interim, the government requests that the filings remain under seal to protect her identity from public disclosure so that her security is not compromised and so that there will be no witness intimidation issues that could undermine these proceedings.

One way or another, though, it’s clear that Hallie Biden was first compelled to testify against her brother-in-law in 2022, when Lesley Wolf was overseeing the case.

 

Definition of an Addict: Why Hunter’s Paraphernalia around Kids Matters

/33 Comments/in , , /by

As I keep reminding, Hunter Biden faces three charges.

Two pertain to the form he signed at the gun shop, which not only implicates the mutually inconsistent testimony from the three gun shop guys, but also requires an additional element of the offense (materiality for one, and retention for the other) that may be undermined by their shenanigans, to the very limited extent Judge Noreika allowed Hunter to present that.

The third charge, unlawful possession, will be easier for prosecutors to prove. To win a conviction, they have to convince all 12 jurors that at any point in the 11 days Hunter owned the gun, he either knowingly used a controlled substance or was was knowing addict (the knowing possession will be easy to prove, since as soon as he realized the gun was gone from the console of his truck, he asked Hallie about it). Prosecutors are asking for unanimity on at least one of those measures.

Count 3: Possession of a Firearm by a Drug User or Drug Addict 18 USC 922(g)(3)

  • Whether the defendant was either an unlawful user of a controlled substance or a drug addict
  • Whether the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm
  • Whether the defendant knew he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance or a drug addict at any point in time between October 12 and October 23, 2018

Here are the definitions the jury will use to decide if he qualifies.

The term “addict” means any individual who habitually uses any controlled substance so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of a controlled substance as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.

The phrase “unlawful user of a controlled substance” means a person who uses a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. The defendant must have been actively engaged in use of a controlled substance or controlled substances during the time he possessed the firearm, but the law does not require that he used the controlled substance or controlled substances at the precise time he possessed the firearm. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. An inference that a person was a user of a controlled substance may be drawn from evidence of a pattern of use or possession of a controlled substance that reasonably covers the time the firearm was possessed.

Prosecutors have circumstantial evidence that Hunter used controlled substances in that 11 day period. Naomi Biden says that when she gave her dad’s truck back to him, it was clean. Hallie Biden says that when she searched it days later, it had remnants of crack cocaine. Add that to the text where Hunter told Hallie he was with a crack dealer, and that may be enough to convict.

That’s all circumstantial, of course.

What’s not in dispute is that Hunter was an addict in that period, and regularly referred to himself as such. But that’s where the rest of the definition gets interesting.

Prosecutors have presented evidence — again, with Naomi Biden’s testimony, as well as Zoe Kestan’s — that Hunter was a high functioning addict. They’re not going to convince a jury he had lost the power of self control for the period in question.

Which means to prove he was an addict they’ll need to prove that his habitual use of crack cocaine endangered public safety, and that he recognized that during the 11 days in question.

This is the single area where anything in his memoir is useful at all. He told stories about how in 2016 he did really stupid stuff involving cars.

But that’s not the most likely way a jury will find that he endangered public safety. It will be from Kathleen Buhle and Hallie’s testimony that they routinely searched his car to ensure there was no drug paraphernalia around their kids. It will be in Hallie’s validation of a text — a text prosecutors had not shared with Hunter in advance — that days after she disposed of the gun, she found a leather pouch with a pipe right next to where Hunter’s nephew Hunter was playing.

It’s also the reason why, I suggested, the defense may have called Naomi to rebut Hallie’s testimony that the console of the truck was locked, that the gun was kept locked the entire time he owned it. If the console was unlocked, then it shows that his addiction led him to treat the gun unsafely. It’s also why Abbe Lowell tried to get Hallie to remember that she told cops that she searched the truck because she was looking for evidence that he was cheating on her, not because she believed he had been using.

We have no idea what jurors will decide in days ahead. What we do know is what definition they’ll use to decide whether he was an addict.

And one measure of that will be the extent that he exposed Joe Biden’s grandchildren to his drug habit.

Compelling Hallie Biden

/51 Comments/in , /by

Hallie Biden is getting married this weekend, apparently between the time her youngest graduated from high school and the ninth anniversary of Beau Biden’s death and the start of the Hunter Biden trial, at which she will be the most important witness. I learned that when I perused the Page Six reporting on how Melania, Barron, and Ivanka all snuck into Trump Tower to commiserate with Donald after he was made a convicted felon.

Goodness knows that woman has been put through the wringer since Murdoch has made Hunter the primary focus of its obsession; I wish her a long, supportive, private marriage.

But first she has to make it through two Hunter Biden trials.

I want to focus on one aspect of the Hunter Biden trial, which starts next week, which has been missed by those doing scene-setters for the trial. This post, on how prosecutors plan to prove their case, and this one, on rulings thus far on motions in limine lay out much of how the trial will go.

Judge Noreika still has to rule on a dispute about whether Hunter Biden will be able to show the jury how the gun shop doctored his purchase form when the ATF asked for the hard copy of it. If she permits that, it makes two of the three charges against Hunter far sketchier, both of which rely on the way he filled out a form when he purchased the gun. Once gun shop employees admit that they didn’t require Hunter to provide a valid ID because they knew who he was, and then doctored the form years later to cover up that they had done so, it will provide an opening for Hunter’s lawyers to raise a doubt about what happened with the form on the front end and certainly whether it was material to the sale (materiality is required by just one of those two counts).

That leaves Count Three, that Hunter was either an addict or a user of illegal drugs during the period he knowingly owned the gun in 2018. As the government laid out and Judge Noreika adopted for her orders, they will only need to prove that he knew he had the gun and either knew he was an addict or that he used a controlled substance in those 11 days in 2018.

Thus, that leaves only the following issues for trial with respect to Count Three: (1) whether the defendant was either an unlawful user of a controlled substance or a drug addict;4 (2) whether the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm, (3) whether the defendant knew he was a unlawful user of a controlled substance or a drug addict at any point in time while he possessed the firearm (i.e., on any date between October 12 and October 23, 2018).

This is the charge that is most ripe to be overturned by post-Bruen constitutional charges, and Hunter plans an as-applied constitutional charge if he is convicted on it. But it is also the one that will be easiest to prove.

To prove it, though, prosecutors will rely heavily on Hallie Biden.

That’s because she exchanged a bunch of texts with Hunter both during the period he had the gun and as he almost immediately realized that she had done something with it on October 23, including these from October 14 where he seemingly describes smoking crack in a car.

Hunter had days earlier lost his phones, and so he was repurposing an old phone when he sent these texts.

The government has repeatedly described that they’ll have a witness — who by description is Hallie — who will testify that she sent and received those messages.

What we’re using on the laptop are messages that will be corroborated by a witness in this case who will testify that she sent those messages and received those messages.

If they can convince a jury these texts are valid representations of Hunter’s mindset at the time, it will be fairly compelling evidence on Count Three.

And that’s why the question of whether and if so how prosecutors compelled Hallie’s testimony is of interest.

In the face of representations from her attorney that she would invoke the Fifth Amendment on the stand, David Weiss has moved to compel her testimony in Los Angeles.

The Special Counsel hereby applies to this Honorable Court for an order compelling Hallie Biden to testify and produce evidence pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 6001 et seq., and respectfully represents as follows:

1. Hallie Biden has been subpoenaed to testify before this Court during trial beginning on June 20, 2024;

2. Counsel for Hallie Biden has advised that if Hallie Biden is called to the stand she will at that time refuse to answer questions, invoking the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination;

3. In the judgment of the Special Counsel, the testimony of Hallie Biden may be necessary to the public interest; and

4. Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg, an authorized Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States, has approved this application for an order instructing Hallie Biden to testify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002 and 28 C.F.R. § 0.175(a).

Even though, absent statutes of limitation, her testimony in the Delaware case might be just as incriminating (because she’s the one who disposed of the gun), there’s no sign of such compulsion in the Delaware docket.

There is, however, a sealed filing (uncontested by Hunter’s team) pertaining to the testimony of a female witness that David Weiss has gotten permission to retain under seal until after the witness finishes testifying.

The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, David. C. Weiss, Special Counsel, and Derek E. Hines and Leo J. Wise, Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Delaware, move that the enclosed filing be filed under seal as well as the accompanying proposed order and requested order from the court. The filing relates to a witness issue in the upcoming trial. The government will move to unseal this filing after the conclusion of the witness’s testimony at trial. In the interim, the government requests that the filings remain under seal to protect her identity from public disclosure so that her security is not compromised and so that there will be no witness intimidation issues that could undermine these proceedings. See United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1115 (3d Cir. 1985).

This isn’t necessarily Hallie: in addition to the female FBI agent and Hunter’s ex-wife, there’s a female witness who partied with Hunter in Los Angeles in spring 2018 whose testimony might have some unique circumstances behind it. But, given the motion to compel her testimony in Los Angeles, there’s a pretty good likelihood it is Hallie.

Indeed, it could be nothing more than a sealed version of the motion to compel in Los Angeles (which for some reason did not obscure her identity), which was filed just three days later.

Obviously, prosecutors have prepped Hallie’s testimony. They claim to know precisely how she’ll testify. So there shouldn’t be too many surprises next week at trial.

If nothing else, however, it would mean two of three key witnesses at trial (the other being the gun shop owner, who testifying under a proffer admitted he only retroactively created a record of having required the proper identification for the sale) had concerns about their own legal exposure for a gun sale made over five years ago. It would mean that prosecutors have decided to pick and choose who’ll face legal liability for those events, deciding that Joe Biden’s kid will be the one who faces legal consequences for a charge no one else would have been charged with under the circumstances.