Judge Ain’t Buying Hunter Biden’s Efforts to Throw Out Gun Charges

A federal judge in Delaware declined to dismiss gun charges against Hunter Biden Friday, rejecting several challenges from President Biden’s son claiming he is being prosecuted for political purposes.

The younger Biden filed a series of motions late last year, accusing special counsel David Weiss of buckling “under political pressure” in bringing the case against him.

In three separate filings Friday, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika denied the defense’s argument that the case should be dropped because of “vindictive prosecution,” rejected Biden’s claim that Weiss was illegally elevated into the special counsel role and invalidated his motion to dismiss because of immunity conferred by a now-defunct plea deal.

The judge, appointed by former President Trump, has not yet ruled on Biden’s constitutional challenge to his charges under the 2nd Amendment.

Norieka said in her ruling that Hunter Biden’s legal team did not provide concrete evidence to back up their claims that outside influences tainted the special counsel’s decision to pursue the case.

“The pressure campaign from Congressional Republicans may have occurred around the time that Special Counsel decided to move forward with indictment instead of pretrial diversion, but the Court has been given nothing credible to suggest that the conduct of those lawmakers (or anyone else) had any impact on Special Counsel,” she wrote. “It is all speculation.”

Biden was indicted on three gun-related charges last September — two counts for failing to disclose drug use when seeking to buy a weapon and another for unlawful possession of a firearm while addicted to a controlled substance. He pleaded not guilty to all charges after a deal with the government fell apart.

Under the agreement, he would have pleaded guilty to two tax offenses in order to avoid a formal gun-related charge under specific conditions.

After the deal was placed on hold, Biden’s attorney, Abe Lowell, accused the Justice Department of changing their decision “on the fly.”

“One, they wrote something and weren’t clear what they meant. Two, they knew what they meant and misstated it to counsel. Or third, they change their view as they were standing in court in Delaware,” he said of the prosecutors at the time in an interview with CBS News.

His legal team has also argued that because he gave up “valuable rights” as part of the contract, the immunity should still hold.