President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, has submitted multiple motions in Delaware, contesting the gun charges filed against him. In a motion seeking dismissal, Biden asserts that special counsel David Weiss yielded to political pressure in initiating the charges. Additionally, he contends that Weiss was unlawfully appointed to the special counsel role.
The motions filed by Biden’s legal team address the plea deal he was set to accept, arguing that he should be immune from prosecution under the prior agreement. They contend that the Second Amendment protects his right to possess a firearm despite his history of drug use.
According to Biden’s legal team, the original plan was to resolve the case through a diversion and plea agreement. However, the announcement of this plan drew criticism from former President Trump, extremist House Republicans, and the far-right media. They wanted Weiss to keep the litigation alive through the presidential election. Biden’s legal team argues that Weiss’s decision to bring more severe charges resulted from political pressure.
The filing made by Biden’s legal team echoes Trump’s motion to dismiss charges against him in a federal election interference case. Both Biden and Trump claim that the charges against them are politically motivated.
Biden’s counsel also alleges that federal prosecutors walked back a plea agreement that would have allowed him to avoid the gun charges altogether. They argue that the deal Biden agreed to provide him immunity from firearm offenses in exchange for giving up certain rights, including his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The prosecution, however, brought charges related to the firearm identified in the diversion agreement, which Biden’s lawyers argue violated the terms of the agreement.
In September, federal prosecutors indicted Biden on three gun-related charges, including failing to disclose drug use when attempting to purchase a firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm while addicted to a controlled substance. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Additionally, Biden’s legal team contends that the charge related to his gun possession is unconstitutional, citing the Supreme Court’s broadening of Second Amendment rights in NYSRPA v. Bruen. They highlight a precedent a federal appeals court set that invalidated a comparable statute. If the court rules the gun possession charge as unconstitutional in Biden’s case, they argue that the remaining charges would automatically be nullified.
The filing also questions Weiss’s authority as special counsel, arguing that he cannot serve in that role while also serving as the U.S. Attorney for Delaware. Biden’s attorneys cite U.S. Department of Justice regulations that state the special counsel must be selected from outside the United States Government.
These motions provide a glimpse into how Biden may handle a second indictment brought by Weiss in California, which includes felony and misdemeanor tax charges. The charges in California heavily rely on personal details about Biden’s life and allege a disregard for tax obligations.