Conservative News Daily

Federal judge denies Hunter Biden’s request, citing no special treatment.

Federal Judge Denies Hunter Biden’s Request for Special Treatment

Finally, a ​refreshing change: Hunter Biden is being treated like any other citizen alleged ​to have committed a crime. According to CNN, federal Magistrate Judge ⁤Christopher⁢ J. Burke denied ⁢a defense request for the president’s son to appear virtually to enter ⁣a ⁣plea in his federal firearms violation case when he’s arraigned on Oct. 3.

Arraignment ⁤Date Pushed Back

The initial date for arraignment in the case was supposed to be⁣ Sept. 26, according to United Press International. However, it was pushed back at ⁢the ⁢request of his attorneys.

Defense Request Denied

Abbe Lowell, one of Biden’s many members of counsel, urged the court to let him appear via video link in a Tuesday filing.

“No matter whether in person or virtual, he will waive reading of the indictment, which is merely a few pages​ and could easily be read at a video conference,” the filing read.

However, special counsel David Weiss pushed⁢ back on the move, saying it was unprecedented.

“Hunter Biden⁢ does not contend he is⁤ injured ‌or indigent,” wrote the special counsel, ⁤initially a​ Delaware U.S. attorney ⁤investigating the Hunter​ case, in a court filing.

In-Person Appearance Promotes Public Confidence

Weiss also‌ said the in-person court appearance would “promote ‌the⁤ public’s confidence” that the fix wasn’t in for the president’s son.

“An⁢ in-person hearing ⁣is important to promote the public’s confidence that the defendant is being ⁣treated consistently with other defendants in this District and in other Districts,” Weiss’ team‌ said in its ‍court filing.

“Moreover, the previous arraignment held in connection with this matter⁢ was anything but routine ⁢because the defendant and his previous‌ attorney ​were not prepared to answer the⁢ Court’s⁣ questions.”

Judge’s Ruling

The Delaware judge sided with the​ special counsel.

“In the end,⁢ the‌ Court agrees with⁤ both Defendant …‍ and the Government …‌ that Defendant should not receive special treatment ⁤in this matter – absent‌ some unusual circumstance,⁢ he should be treated ⁢just as would any other defendant in ​our Court,” Judge Burke wrote in his ruling ​on Wednesday.

“Any other​ defendant would be required to attend his​ or her initial appearance in person. So too here.

“Therefore, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED,” the ruling concluded.

Legal Woes for Hunter Biden

The⁢ gun charge could be just the ⁤beginning ‍of Hunter’s legal troubles, depending‌ on how serious the special counsel is regarding the tax and gun allegations the​ president’s son faces.

Complicated Plea Agreement

Mind you, this was all supposed to be settled quietly via a plea agreement arranged by the Department of⁤ Justice in which ‍Hunter would plead⁣ guilty to the tax and gun‌ violations so long as he completed a diversionary program designed for offenders who had drug issues.

Appointment of Special Counsel

However, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika found the⁣ agreement‍ dubious, ⁤particularly since 1) it offered Hunter wide immunity for​ crimes not even covered under the plea agreement and 2) the prosecution and ⁤defense argued in court over how wide the immunity being offered was. She called⁣ the⁣ plea “confusing,” “not⁤ straightforward,” “unprecedented” and⁢ “atypical,” refused to‍ accept the deal,⁣ and ordered attorneys to go back ​to the bargaining table to hash out something more conventional.

Appointment of Special Counsel

It failed, and Weiss was appointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland. While there has been some ⁢ skepticism⁤ from Republicans about Weiss’ appointment — he had handled the case previously, after all, including the botched plea agreement — Weiss ⁢has taken on arguably the easiest case to convict Hunter ‍on, the gun charges.

The Gun Charges

In 2018, Hunter bought a Colt Cobra .38 ⁢Special through a gun dealer. As part⁣ of a federal background check⁣ form, he asserted he ​was drug-free, a precondition to legally purchasing a firearm. According to Hunter’s own memoir, however, he was on a wild drug bender at roughly the same time ⁣he purchased the ‌weapon.

Equal Treatment for All Defendants

Suffice it to say, it’s a bit complicated, but the point is that anyone who came across the gun in the⁤ dumpster could have used it in nefarious ways ⁣— or Hunter could have, ⁣considering his mental state at the time.

White House ⁣Concerns

Apparently, the White House — and‌ specifically, the president — is in ‍a tizzy over the fact the first son is finally being treated like any other person.

Protective of Hunter Biden

“The emotional toll continues to weigh heavily on the president and first lady, who approach the most ⁤sensitive family matters as a father and mother above all else, according to a source familiar with their​ thinking,” NBC News reported Saturday. “But the recent shift in their outlook has been dramatic, the source said.”

Michael LaRosa, Jill Biden’s ⁢former press secretary, told the network, “Every day, ​this president wakes⁢ up and thinks about his⁢ deceased son ​and probably cries every day. And the weight of [Hunter’s legal troubles] is equally⁣ emotionally taxing.” He added that the Bidens are “incredibly protective of Hunter.”


Yes, and that’s how we got here. Now, the most enabled prodigal son in recent Washington history will have to eat the same carob pods the rest of the ordinary swine that go through the legal system ⁣are forced to swallow.

The post Federal‍ Judge Shuts Down Hunter Biden’s Big Request, Saying He ‘Should Not Receive Special Treatment’ appeared first ⁢on The Western Journal.

Sident —‌ had concerns​ about⁣ the‌ negative publicity surrounding Hunter‍ Biden’s case. ‌They reportedly wanted ‍the arraignment to​ be conducted ​virtually​ to avoid media attention ​and ⁢any potential embarrassment for ‌the⁢ administration. However, it⁤ is refreshing ⁤to see that the judge denied this⁢ request and upheld

What potential reasons could the administration have had⁤ for wanting a virtual arraignment, and how does the judge’s ⁢decision promote accountability in this context?

There could be several potential ​reasons why the administration would⁤ prefer a virtual arraignment:

1. Convenience and efficiency: Conducting ⁢the arraignment virtually could save time and​ resources for both the court system‌ and ⁣the administration.⁤ It eliminates the need to transport the defendant from a correctional facility to the courthouse, especially if they are located far apart. This can help streamline the legal ⁢process and enable more cases to be heard in‌ a ⁤given time.

2. Safety and security:⁤ Virtual arraignments can reduce risks associated‍ with transporting defendants, especially in cases where ‌the⁤ individual may ‌pose a danger or be a flight risk. By conducting⁢ the arraignment remotely, the court can ensure the safety‌ of all parties involved and minimize the potential for any disruptive incidents.

3. Access to justice: Virtual arraignments can‍ help improve access to justice, particularly for individuals who ⁣live‌ in⁢ remote⁢ areas or have mobility issues. ​It eliminates the ‌need for defendants,‌ attorneys, and other court personnel to physically⁤ be⁤ present⁢ in the same location, making‍ it more⁤ convenient and ⁣accessible for ‍all involved parties.

The judge’s‌ decision to go ​ahead with the virtual arraignment promotes accountability in‌ this context in several ways:

1. ​Maintaining the court’s functioning: By allowing virtual arraignments, the judge ensures that the court’s operations continue⁤ during unforeseen circumstances, such as the absence⁤ of physical courtrooms ‌due to⁢ a ​pandemic or other emergencies. This upholds the ⁢principle of accountability by ensuring the legal system continues⁢ to⁤ function, ⁢even under challenging ⁤circumstances.

2. Equal treatment under ‌the ⁣law: ⁣Conducting virtual arraignments ensures that defendants ⁢are treated equally, regardless of​ their physical location. It prevents any ⁤potential bias or⁣ disadvantage that may arise from transporting‌ defendants to a⁤ particular‌ court‍ location, promoting fairness and accountability in the legal process.

3. Maintaining transparency: Virtual arraignments typically incorporate videoconferencing technology, which allows for real-time communication between the defendant, judge, and attorneys. This ensures all parties can participate, ask⁤ questions, and present their‌ case effectively, ‌thereby maintaining transparency and accountability in ⁤the proceedings.

Overall, the judge’s decision in favor of a virtual arraignment ​promotes ​accountability by prioritizing safety, access, efficiency, ‍and fairness in the legal system.

" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker