A federal judge threatened to sanction Hunter Biden’s attorneys for making “false statements” in their motion asking to dismiss his criminal charges in California.
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi issued an order Wednesday asking Hunter Biden’s attorneys to “show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for making false statements in the motion.” Scarsi wrote that Biden’s attorneys falsely claimed that U.S. Attorney David Weiss did not bring charges against the president’s son until after he was appointed special counsel.
“These statements, however, are not true, and Mr. Biden’s counsel knows they are not true.” Scarsi wrote.
Biden’s lawyers filed a motion last week asking the judge to dismiss his criminal charges in California, where he is scheduled to stand trial this fall on accusations of filing false tax returns and tax evasion. They also filed a motion asking a judge in Delaware to throw out his criminal charges in his federal gun case, which resulted in a conviction last month.
In both motions, the attorneys cited U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s recent decision to dismiss former President Trump’s classified documents charges in Florida that ruled that special counsel Jack Smith was not lawfully appointed. Cannon said selecting him as special counsel “effectively usurps” Congress’s constitutional role in the appointment process.
Biden’s team attempted to use that decision as a reason why his charges should be dismissed, writing that Weiss had years as a U.S. Attorney “to bring whatever charges he believed were merited, but he brought no charges until after he received the Special Counsel title that he sought.”
Scarsi wrote in his order that Weiss brought the initial charges against Biden as a U.S. Attorney and before being appointed Special Counsel. Biden was expected to plead guilty, but after the plea deal unraveled last year, Weiss indicted him and began preparing to head to trial.
“The misstatements in the current motion are not trivial. Mr. Weiss’s institution of charges against Mr. Biden in his capacity as U.S. Attorney offers a meaningful distinction between this case and the nonbinding district court decision on which Mr. Biden bases his motion,” Scarsi wrote.
“But Mr. Biden’s motion does not engage with this distinction; instead, counsel avoids the issue by misrepresenting the history of the proceedings,” he continued, adding that the court “has little tolerance for lack of candor from counsel.”
Scarsi said Biden’s team has seven days to respond to the order and that a failure to “file a timely and satisfactory response will result in sanctions.”
The Hill has reached out to Biden’s attorneys for comment.