Last week, Central District of California Judge Mark Scarsi raised eyebrows by asking Hunter Biden’s legal team to “show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for making false statements.” These lawyers, including renowned attorneys Mark Geragos and Abbe Lowell, are currently engaged in a rigorous battle to dismiss Biden’s criminal case, arguing on somewhat parallel grounds to Aileen Cannon’s controversial opinion that special counsels are “unlegal.” The intricacies of this legal tussle have drawn considerable attention, but the latest development appears to stem from a more procedural issue.
Biden’s defense contends that special counsel David Weiss, who also serves as a U.S. Attorney, fundamentally misstepped. They argue that Weiss did not use his authority to bring any charges against Biden until he was appointed as special counsel—an appointment they claim was sought under political pressure. The team points to Weiss’s actions both before and after his special counsel designation, noting that no significant charges were levied until his elevation. Their arguments are detailed in their response brief.
Judge Scarsi’s warning of sanctions follows concerns that Biden’s attorneys may have made ‘false statements.’ The crux of the issue seems to revolve around a specific wording in a motion. While the motion stated Weiss “had years to bring whatever charges he believed were merited, but he brought no charges until after he received the Special Counsel title that he sought,” the team clarifies that charges were indeed discussed as part of a plea deal.
This distinction between discussing charges in a negotiation and formally bringing charges to a grand jury has been repeatedly addressed by Biden’s defense, indicating no intent to mislead. Yet, Judge Scarsi’s interpretation veers differently, raising questions about judicial interpretations in high-profile cases. Such procedural matters might seem trivial compared to the broader legal strategy, but they highlight the often nuanced battlegrounds in high-stakes litigation. The ongoing debate, including responses from Biden’s team, can be followed in articles such as the latest piece on Above the Law.