A House committee chairman and a conservative think tank attempted to get involved in Hunter Biden’s federal criminal case just ahead of his plea hearing Wednesday, raising concerns that the prosecution showed preferential treatment to President Biden’s son.
Hunter Biden will make his first court appearance in Wilmington, Del., at 10 a.m. ET in front of U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, a Trump appointee who is poised to decide whether to accept the plea agreement reached with the Justice Department.
The president’s son has agreed to plead guilty to two counts of willful failure to pay taxes and avoid prosecution for possessing a gun while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
Republicans have levied accusations that it was a “sweetheart deal.” Adding to the pushback, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and the Heritage Foundation in unusual moves Tuesday filed separate motions to submit amicus briefs in the Justice Department’s case.
Smith’s brief cites recent testimony from two IRS whistleblowers — special agent Joseph Ziegler and his supervisor, Gary Shapley — who testified before Congress privately and publicly alleging that prosecutors slow-walked the case and showed preferential treatment to Hunter Biden.
“Given the abruptness of the announcement of the Plea Agreement shortly after Whistleblowers’ testimony before Congress, and in light of the seriousness of the Whistleblower’ allegations, it is critical that the Court consider the Whistleblower Materials before determining whether to accept the Plea Agreement,” Smith wrote in the brief.
The brief led to a bizarre series of events.
Hunter Biden’s attorneys accused Smith of including in the document confidential tax information and other details that should not have been posted on the public court docket, including his social security number. In response, an employee at Latham & Watkins — a law firm representing the president’s son, apparently called the court’s clerk office to have the personal information redacted, court documents indicate.
But in an order issued later in the day, Noreika said the Latham employee had only gotten it removed after misrepresenting herself to be associated with the law firm representing Smith.
“It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the Clerk’s Office to remove the amicus materials from the docket,” Noreika wrote, ordering Biden’s attorneys to submit in writing why they shouldn’t be sanctioned.
In court filings Tuesday night, Biden’s attorneys called the debacle an “unintentional miscommunication.” They said the call was placed by an experienced administrative staff member at the firm, who is not a practicing attorney, and that they introduced themselves when making the call.
“We have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is there was no misrepresentation,” wrote Matthew Salerno, an attorney on Biden’s legal team.