(Washington) A federal judge in Delaware refused Friday to dismiss a gun charge against Hunter Biden, refuting several arguments, including the president’s son’s claim that he was being pursued for political purposes .
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika rejected defense efforts to dismiss a charge that Hunter Biden lied about his drug use in October 2018 to purchase a gun that he kept for about 11 days.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers had argued that the case was politically motivated and claimed that an immunity provision from a plea deal initially reached was still valid. The lawyers had also challenged the appointment of special counsel David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware, to lead the prosecution.
Me Noreika, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump, has yet to rule on the challenge to the constitutionality of the gun-related charges.
Hunter Biden faces tax fraud cases in Los Angeles alleging he failed to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes owed over three years while leading an “extravagant lifestyle” during his years of drug use. The judge in the case refused to dismiss the charges earlier this month.
Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty in both cases. A representative for his legal team did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.
The president’s son admitted to suffering from a crack addiction during this period in 2018, but his lawyers said he did not break the law and another person having been prosecuted for the first time would not have been charged.
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell had argued that Hunter Biden was “selectively indicted” for improper political purposes. They argued that Weiss “bowed to political pressure” to charge the president’s son amid criticism from Trump and other Republicans over the plea deal.
Me Norieka said in his ruling that Biden’s team provided “nothing concrete” to support the conclusion that anyone actually influenced the special counsel’s team.
“The pressure campaign by congressional Republicans may have occurred around the time the special prosecutor decided to move forward with an indictment instead of pretrial diversion , but the Court was not presented with any credible evidence to suggest that the conduct of these legislators (or anyone else) had any impact on the special counsel, the judge wrote. This is all speculation. »