A nonprofit research group which combed through Hunter Biden’s laptop has sent a letter to the judge overseeing the First Son’s tax fraud case, urging her to reject the plea deal offered by prosecutors.
Marco Polo, which put emails from the laptop online and wrote a 630-page report summarizing its contents, said that judges are not obligated to accept plea deals even if prosecutors and the defendant agree on them, and that “not only will the plea deal in front of you, if accepted, make a mockery of the phrase ‘slap on the wrist,’ but it will also send a sobering message to citizens which demonstrates that nepotism and proximity to political power determines outcomes in our criminal justice system.”
It said “there is evidence for, at the very least, 459 violations of state and federal laws and regulations on the device. The breakdown is as follows: 140 business-related crimes, 191 sex-related crimes, and, lastly, 128 drug-related crimes. These instances of criminal wrongdoing are supported by primary source evidence: emails, photos, videos, text messages, audio files, et al. The plea deal for your consideration is so meager that the phrase ‘limited hangout’ does not describe the situation.”
It said a “limited hangout” is a public relations technique in which someone who wants to cover up something major admits to a very small portion in order to claim that the issue has been put to rest.
Joining Marco Polo in the letter was Rudy Giuliani, the former Donald Trump attorney who played a role in disseminating the laptop after the FBI appeared to sit on it.
“By virtue of having been the United States Attorney (‘USA’) for the Southern District of New York, Mr. Giuliani is uniquely capable of spotting a ‘sweetheart’ deal reserved for those such as Biden, whose father is the president. Without Biden’s familial connections, there is no way any USA or AUSA would have proposed two misdemeanors and essentially a non-prosecution on the felony gun charge,” the letter said.
Robert Costello, Giuliani’s own lawyer and a former deputy in the New York prosecutor’s office, also signed the letter to Judge Maryellen Noreika of the District of Delaware federal court.
The letter said that congressional oversight and whistleblower disclosures have provided information that suggests that the plea deal, which is limited to misdemeanor tax charges, would allow a felony gun charge to go away under a diversion program, and carries a penalty of only probation, was the result of prosecutorial misconduct.
It said that then-Assistant US Attorney Lesley Wolf prevented investigators from getting more evidence by tipping the Bidens off that a raid on a storage unit was imminement.
“This egregious leak from Wolf-and her Department of Justice colleague and lawyer, Mark Daly-infuriated the IRS investigators (i.e. two of the whistleblowers) and likely violated Pennsylvania Bar rules (where Wolf is barred) in addition to federal statutes. Furthermore, Wolf apparently concealed evidence from the investigators, demanded that investigators avoid inquiring about ‘the big guy,’ a moniker for the U.S. president, Joe Biden, and was improperly concerned about the ‘optics’ regarding a search warrant of the U.S. President’s guest house. Suffice it is to say that ‘optics’ should not dictate investigative steps.”
It said according to congressional testimony from IRS whistleblowers, Hunter Biden’s lawyer Chris Clark told prosecutors that their “careers would be ruined if they brought various charges against Hunter.”
Further, “the District of Delaware has never — going back to 1995 — charged 26 USC §7203 as a standalone misdemeanor, as is the case with Biden. This proposed plea deal is, quite literally, unprecedented; we hope you will recognize that it is unprecedented because it is unjust,” the letter said.
“Lastly, the Chairman of the Oversight and Accountability Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives has announced that Biden’s former business partner, Devon Archer, will be testifying before his Committee early next week. It is imperative that this Court be apprised of that testimony to consider whether to accept this plea offer. At the very least, Your Honor’s consideration of this proposed plea should not be made until you are aware of all the salient facts likely to be revealed,” it said.