Hunter Biden Twitter Censorship

DOJ Rebukes Hunter Biden’s Lawyers, Denies ‘Sweetheart’ Immunity Agreement Is Valid

Special Counsel David Weiss said in a court filing Tuesday that Hunter Biden’s plea deal and pretrial diversion agreement are not in effect, denying a claim his lawyers made Sunday night.
Hunter Biden (Screengrab)

Special Counsel David Weiss said in a court filing Tuesday that Hunter Biden’s plea deal and pretrial diversion agreement are not in effect, denying a claim his lawyers made Sunday night.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers told the judge in a filing that his plea deal and diversion agreement were “largely dictated” by Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors, also stating that the diversion agreement is still “valid and binding.”

The lawyers wrote in a footnote that the Government said in court the agreement was “in effect” and stands apart from the plea deal, which the DOJ denied Tuesday.

“The Government never said the proposed diversion agreement was in effect because it is not,” Weiss responded in the court filing Tuesday. “And in none of the portions of the transcript that the Defendant cites in this footnote did the Government say the diversion agreement was in effect. In fact, the Government said the opposite.”

In the news: New College Of Florida Group Alleges Law ‘Censors’ Courses

Special Counsel David Weiss said in a court filing Tuesday that Hunter Biden’s plea deal and pretrial diversion agreement are not in effect, denying a claim his lawyers made Sunday night.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers told the judge in a filing that his plea deal and diversion agreement were “largely dictated” by Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors, also stating that the diversion agreement is still “valid and binding.” The lawyers wrote in a footnote that the Government said in court the agreement was “in effect” and stands apart from the plea deal, which the DOJ denied Tuesday.

In the news: Court Rules Maryland School District Allowed To Keep Child Gender Transitions From Parents

“The Government never said the proposed diversion agreement was in effect because it is not,” Weiss responded in the court filing Tuesday. “And in none of the portions of the transcript that the Defendant cites in this footnote did the Government say the diversion agreement was in effect. In fact, the Government said the opposite.”

Android Users, Click To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. Follow Us On Facebook and Twitter. Signup for our free newsletter. 

We can’t do this without your help; visit our GiveSendGo page and donate any dollar amount; every penny helps.

Login To Facebook To Comment
Share This: