Merely three weeks earlier, information had surfaced that federal agents suspected enough evidence to charge Hunter Biden for unlawfully purchasing a firearm as a drug user.
The attorney referred to the leak as “unlawful” in a communication to the U.S. attorney supervising the investigation. He contended that such a prosecution could be viewed as purely politically motivated and potentially infringe upon the Second Amendment.
However, a cautionary note accompanied his response: Should the Department of Justice proceed with charging the president’s son, Hunter Biden’s legal team would summon the president to testify.
“In any criminal trial, President Biden would undoubtedly serve as a factual witness for the defense,” the attorney Clark conveyed in a 32-page letter, as examined by POLITICO.
These communications, encompassing over 300 pages of previously undisclosed emails and documents exchanged between Hunter Biden’s legal representatives and prosecutors, unveil a fresh perspective on the intense negotiations that nearly yielded an extensive plea agreement. Such an agreement could have resolved Biden’s pressing legal matters – the gun acquisition and his tax delinquency spanning multiple years. Moreover, it might have shielded Biden from potential future prosecution under a Republican-led Justice Department.
These records illuminate the unraveling of the deal – a swift reversal triggered by Republican criticism and judicial inquiries. The breakdown revived the prospect of a trial for Biden, aligning with his father’s gearing up for the 2024 reelection campaign.
The Hunter Biden case has been steeped in political dimensions, including within Biden’s legal team. Throughout their confidential discussions with prosecutors, the documents illustrate that Biden’s attorneys frequently invoked the distinct political undercurrents that underscored the case. They made it clear that they believed pressure from congressional Republicans was inappropriately shaping the investigation.
References were made to Donald Trump, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and the unsuccessful prosecution of an attorney linked to Hillary Clinton. The lawyers argued that pursuing the case could tarnish the reputation of the Department of Justice.
They also contended that a trial involving the president’s son would trigger political and constitutional upheaval by pitting the president against his own Justice Department.
“Given the circumstances, this case doesn’t justify the spectacle of a sitting President testifying at a criminal trial or the potential for resulting Constitutional turmoil,” Clark’s letter conveyed.
The contents of Clark’s letter and other documents were shared with POLITICO by an individual knowledgeable about the interactions between Hunter Biden’s legal team and the Department of Justice.
These documents offer an intricate, behind-the-scenes glimpse into the brink of a potential plea agreement. However, as a judge posed a few basic questions during a recent hearing about the specifics, the agreement began to fray. Subsequently, it unraveled in the ensuing weeks. The prosecutor overseeing the investigation has been appointed a special counsel, asserting that the case will proceed to trial. Meanwhile, Clark has withdrawn as Hunter Biden’s legal representative, expressing anticipation of becoming a witness.
Clark declined to provide comments for this article. Representatives for the Department of Justice, the White House, and Hunter Biden’s legal team also declined to comment.