Indictment Watch: Trump’s New Charges, Hunter Biden’s Plea

And: Hunter Biden's hearing from hell

By and
96

Sarah Isgur and David French answer questions around the legal troubles of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden, including:

-Drained swimming pools and deleted documents
-How is Hunter Biden in good standing with the DC Bar?
-David’s 10PM runs

Show Notes:

-“It’s Seven Grandkids Mr. President”

-Has the Supreme Court fixed qualified immunity doctrine yet?

By and
Comments (96)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Denise Cote

    Sarah, I totally get the airplane story. In 1970 I was on my very first flight ever, a 747 from jfk to san juan. History will tell you there were planes being hijacked to Cuba back in those days.
    We noticed a gentleman in a white suit and sunglasses holding a briefcase. As we got closer to PR, the pilot said we had to delay landing due to a runway issue. After a few hours we were informed we were diverting to Jamaica to get more fuel. We teenagers became convinced we were getting hijacked to Cuba. We weren't, but I'll never forget that flight. We landed and took off on a too-short runaway, and eventually got to san juan once they got the plane with the flat tire off that runway. Good times!

    Collapse
  2. Shbier

    I love Sarah and David who are very smart lawyers but not prosecutors. Their explanation that the Delaware US Attorney’s office are a bunch of out-lawyered bumpkins is simply not credible. The Andy McCarthy (a real experienced prosecutor) explanation that this was choreographed and the judge called B.S. is far more credible - and that’s after allowing that Sarah and David are more fair minded and less biased than McCarthy. I found their analysis borderline silly.

    Collapse
    1. Clark.Monson

      Sarah can be great at being adversarial, but if she has one blind spot, it’s DOJ. And I get it: former employer, colleagues, her people, etc. But every time DOJ does something controversial, Sarah’s default seems to be to give them the benefit of the doubt. At this point, why should anyone? Skepticism without insane partisanship is what’s called for, not explaining why they were just acting in good faith.

      Collapse
  3. Mark

    RE: Sarah's theory that Main DOJ is playing hands-off of the Hunter Biden plea deal.

    Why not just appoint a special counsel? They were so concerned about the appearance of impropriety on the Trump prosecutions that they appointed a special counsel from the start. In the Hunter Biden case, the impropriety is far beyond appearances and the conflict of interest is glaring.

    There was testimony from the IRS whistleblowers that special counsel status for this case was discussed and denied. If DOJ's intent is to appear hands-off, their plan has failed. There is a fair amount of smoke around the claim that main DOJ is meddling in this case to protect the Bidens and it's getting worse, not better. If DOJ's hands are truly clean on this, then why not just appoint a special counsel, which they probably should have done long ago? And does their continuing failure to do so, especially now after being embarrassed in court, suggest something darker?

    Collapse
    1. MathewA

      agreed they definitely should have created a special counsel for Hunter Biden

      Collapse
  4. Michael.Mcchesney

    I didn't realize an emergency pod was released on Friday until I started listening to today's regularly scheduled flagship podcast. But better late than never (I hope), I have a prediction and a question. First, the prediction. Despite Karine Jean-Pierre's unequivocal denial that Joe Biden would ever pardon Hunter, I am pretty sure that on or around December 25, 2024, Hunter will find a presidential pardon under the tree. The only way that doesn't happen is if Biden wins reelection. In that case, his pardon may wait until Christmas 2028.

    My question is about whether Hunter Biden could argue that a future FARA prosecution was barred by his plea agreement (assuming it happens without any changes). It sounds like you are right that Biden's attorneys had the stronger argument when they and the AUSAs were disagreeing on the record. But once they came back in front of the judge and agreed the agreement did not bar a FARA prosecution, wouldn't that be conclusive? Wouldn't that agreement, in effect, amend the plea agreement to add a clause like "Nothing in this agreement would prevent a future prosecution for FARA violations arising out of the business dealings described here."? Or am I wrong about that?

    Collapse
  5. Clisbyw

    I'm so gobsmacked that David (and Sarah, until recently) had never heard of the Magic Eraser that I can hardly comprehend anything else. Like, guys, there's also this thing called a Swiffer. And laundry detergent pods.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Marc Frischhertz

    Apparently right wing conspiracy theorists have taken over the comments. One hearing with a withdrawn plea deal and people go straight to grand conspiracy theories. Sign of the times.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Retired Prosecutor

      Right wing conspiracy theorists? A really cheap shot.

      Instead why not engage and explain regarding the many points that have been raised about the unprecedented irregularities surrounding the prosecution of this case, i.e. 5 years and still no accusatory pleading, statute of limitations running out or about to run out while the prosecution sits idly by, career IRS whistleblowers with no reason to lie testifying that the case received "special handling," including tipping off the defense about a search warrant? Why is DOJ making a plea bargain agreement with a criminal defendant they say is still under investigation? I've never ever heard of such a thing which belies common sense. I suspect you can't and you won't explain any of this.

      No, far better to just effortlessly hurl an unsupported partisan accusation without explanation or justification.

      Oh and here is a pro tip, if comments coming from the right on this center right website distress you, you likely will find greater comfort reading the Nation or the Daily Kos.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Justice

      Have you heard any of the analysis that's been mentioned, specifically Andy McCarthy's? I would genuinely love to hear a response to it from anyone who sees it differently—so please share any sources or analysis you have that engages with his analysis.

      But in no way could it be fairly described as a conspiracy theory.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Retired Prosecutor

        He talks about "signs of the times." Actually this partisan willing disbelief of inconvenient facts is the actual sign of the times!

        Collapse
  7. Francislyo

    Hunter Biden, like Trump’ kids, enriched himself on his family’s name. However, the way he’s being treated now in no way reflects corruption on the part of President Biden. Hunter is being prosecuted by a DOJ attorney appointed by Trump, left in place by POTUS to continue without interference.

    Why do Republican claims of a “sweetheart deal” seem disingenuous? 1) First-time offenders are rarely prosecuted for both the gun and tax charges Hunter faces. 2) Hunter’s penalties seem more harsh than lenient – even when prosecuted, first-time tax offenses and similar applications for a gun purchase seldom lead to jail time. 3) Contrast with Roger Stone, convicted of 7 felonies, an ally whom Trump pardoned. Stone agreed to pay $2 million unpaid taxes for an unrelated tax offense - this civil case was never elevated to the criminal level. 4) The felony that Hunter agreed to cop to as part of the plea deal is the gun charge, not ordinarily a Republican pet issue, and may soon be declared unconstitutional. (A federal court in Texas recently ruled that prohibiting drug users from possessing firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment.) See Forbes (below).

    For MAGA Republicans, who are outraged by any attempt to hold Trump accountable for actual crimes, this is clearly Not about justice for all. It’s about getting their man elected, and the only way to accomplish this is to mislead voters into thinking that Biden is just as corrupt and unlawful as Trump. Their main tactic is to tar POTUS with his troubled son’s sleaze. It’s about whataboutism, covered well here: The Power of Whataboutism https://bulwarkpodcast.thebulwark.com/p/the-power-of-whataboutism#details

    Stay tuned for MAGA Republican’s attempt to impeach Biden by flipping the truth on Burisma, just as they flip the truth on who stole the 2020 election and on the Jan 6th insurrection. The impeachment will be a twofer: Zelensky and Biden will be cast as the criminals, accomplishing both MAGA goals: 1. Equating Biden with Trump, both impeached yet not convicted and 2. casting Zelensky (and Ukrainians) as corrupt and unworthy of US support by flipping the truth about the firing of a corrupt official at the request of Europe and the US.

    While we see lots of theater and continually hear about the “Biden Crime family”, the promised evidence does not materialize. The best Comer et al can do is titillate the MAGA base by publicly televising X-rated photos of Hunter, supplied to them only after they agreed to not make them public. What pain and ridicule do they think their disgusting breach of trust will have on Hunter’s children, whom they pretend to care so much about? Once publicly posted, such images can never be successfully eradicated from the cloud. House Republicans should NOT be engaging in revenge porn!

    Forbes: Did Hunter Biden Get Off Easy? Republicans Think So—Here’s What Legal Experts Say https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/20/did-hunter-biden-get-off-easy-republicans-thinks-so-heres-what-legal-experts-say/?sh=338a624d794b

    Collapse
    1. MathewA

      You don't have to be a Trump supporter to think there's a lot of shady stuff going on related to Hunter Biden.

      And the two federal employees testifying under oath should be very troubling to everyone unless they are blinded by partisanship.

      Collapse
      1. Francislyo

        It depends on what that testimony is. in general, I’ve found the claims coming out of Comer’s committee to be outlandish, not credible, and unsupported by evidence, reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

        I listened to one of those 2 federal employees, and he seems to be a conservative’s nightmare – upon questioning, he admitted that in the overwhelming number of cases he advises for criminal prosecution, his judgement is overruled – Hunter being one of them. I did not hear the other federal worker, so I can’t speak to his testimony.

        I was disgusted by Comer and MTG’s breaking of trust in displaying nude pictures of Hunter over the objections of the ranking Democrat. Consider the pain and ridicule this will cause Hunter’s children, (Biden’s grandchildren) whom they claim to care so much about. I see no purpose other than to titillate the MAGA base, which, as you put it, “should be very troubling to everyone unless they are blinded by partisanship.”

        Despite MTG/MAGA protestations, many Americans resonate with this description of our system: “a 2-tiered system of justice where some people are forced to plead guilty and other people have the feds ask them a dozen times to please give back the classified records that they illegally held onto. They refuse to either give them back or then plead out, and instead force a raid and a criminal indictment.”
        Donald Trump and Hunter Biden Confess to Crimes!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLyaLTQStRw

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Marc Frischhertz

      Agree 100%

      Collapse
  8. David Barkhausen

    David French's comment that the obvious favoritism to Hunter results from his talented, high-priced lawyers overlooks the unique irregularity of this "plea agreement" as pointed out in exquisite detail by former asst. U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy - the lack of indictments as predicates to the plea deal, the language not conforming to the boilerplate terms required by the DOJ in all plea agreements but, in fact, being permitted by DOJ to be written by Hunter's lawyers, the placement of the immunity language in the diversion agreement, which, contra Sarah, did not entail any "charge." This was obvious a conspiracy, which, in open court, DOJ couldn't admit. So they pretend that there is a continuing investigation, in large part to prevent DOJ/FBI officials from testifying before Congress about it by claiming "no comment" about a matter under investigation. None of this even addresses DOJ allowing the statute of limitations to run on the tax years in which Hunter pulled in most of the loot for the family, even though Hunter's lawyers had agreed to an SOL extension for those years.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Holly Merriman

      I found Andy McCarthy to be blindly partisan on my first listen. He didn't offer more than one possibility or look at it from more than one perspective. I found McCarthy to be so one-sided as to not be credible. The opposite of what we look for from Sarah & David.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Marc Frischhertz

      Yeah. “Obviously” a conspiracy. People who quickly believe conspiracy is the explanation for everything they disagree with are a major problem in society today

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Retired Prosecutor

        Why not surprise us and explain away all the curious circumstances surrounding this sham prosecution, which have been enumerated by multiple commenters. That is of course, unless you cannot.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Justice

        Ah I see you're just going through these comments with ad hominem attacks on folks, and not trying to address the substance of what's being said.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Jim Canestrari

    I have to ask, why couldn't it be that the DOJ deliberately acted "inexperienced" - so that in this case it provided the defense the cover needed to get to the point of what looks like everyone involved wanted in the first place out of the plea? That's not a 4D chess scenario - I've personally witnessed local prosecutors present very weak cases as a means to suggesting to a jury that the outcome they wanted lined up with the defense from the get-go. Collusion like this (a wink and nod) between the DOJ and Biden's legal representation to come up with a scheme that looks like this isn't far-fetched.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Marc Frischhertz

      Yes. It is very far fetched and reckless to make that claim without evidence. Frankly it’s ridiculous

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jim Canestrari

        Marc, you’re on a roll, man!

        Collapse
  10. Jrtownson

    After listening to Andy McCarthy at NR re Hunter Biden plea deal and then Sarah and David, I must say Andy makes the more compelling case that this "prosecution" is politically corrupt. It would help if Sarah and David addressed the fact that no special counsel was appointed for Biden , when there was clearly a conflict of interest for DOJ. Also please address the tone of the plea deal; McCarthy claims it reads like a Hunter resume , written by Hunter's attorneys instead of the DOJ.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      George.Skinner

      It probably *was* written by Hunter’s attorneys - that seems like the kind of move that high-powered representation would make to get an upper hand against a less-resourced, less-experienced prosecutors’ office.
      The trick with Andy McCarthy is that he’s extremely partisan. As David noted, the known facts of the settlement are sufficiently equivocal that you can make the case either way. McCarthy takes the Republican partisan view that it’s a corrupt deal. No big surprise, and as a former prosecutor, McCarthy highlights the evidence that bolsters his case.

      Collapse
      1. Jrtownson

        Agree McCarthy is partisan but not extreme.
        Why no special counsel?
        McCarthy as former prosecutor knows this side of the law better than Sarah and David

        Collapse
Load More