Hunter Biden's legal team is seeking to dismiss criminal cases against him by arguing that the special counsel prosecuting him was unconstitutionally appointed. This follows a similar dismissal in former President Donald Trump's case, where the special counsel's appointment was ruled improper.
The Washington Examiner reported that Biden’s lawyers filed motions to dismiss criminal cases against him in California and Delaware, referencing U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s recent dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case.
Biden's motions are citing Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in a Supreme Court ruling as well as Cannon’s order. The dismissal of Trump's case was based on violations of the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause, where special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was found improper by Cannon.
Cannon ruled that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated these clauses. As a result, Smith has appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit. Hunter Biden’s legal team is drawing parallels between the Trump case and their own, arguing that U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who filed indictments against Biden, was also unconstitutionally appointed.
Weiss, already a Senate-confirmed Delaware attorney, was appointed as special counsel. However, Biden's legal team argues that Weiss, in his role, overstepped his powers by filing cases in multiple jurisdictions and charging a former FBI informant.
Hunter Biden, 54, was convicted on three felony counts in June for lying on a federal firearms form. He is also awaiting trial in Los Angeles on federal tax crime charges. The tax case involves at least $1.4 million in unpaid taxes, which have since been paid.
Biden's legal team is pushing to dismiss these charges, arguing that Weiss’s appointment was unconstitutional. “Guided by Justice Thomas’ opinion, Judge Cannon dismissed an indictment against President Trump earlier this week because the Special Counsel was unconstitutionally appointed,” Hunter Biden’s legal team wrote in their motion.
In their motion, they further stated, “Mr. Biden moves to dismiss the indictment brought against him because the Special Counsel who initiated this prosecution was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause as well.”
According to Congress, a U.S. Attorney must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This ensures that the appointment process follows constitutional guidelines. Hunter Biden’s legal team emphasized this requirement in their arguments.
“Mere U.S. Attorneys do not have that power. Given that Congress requires a U.S. Attorney to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it makes no sense to assume that Congress would allow the Attorney General to unilaterally appoint someone as Special Counsel with equal or greater power than a U.S. Attorney,” Hunter Biden’s lawyers wrote.
Cannon’s dismissal of Trump's case noted that a special counsel’s powers are “arguably broader than a traditional United States Attorney, as he is permitted to exercise his investigatory powers across multiple districts within the same investigation.” This argument is now being applied to Weiss’s role in Biden’s case.
The outcome of Biden's motions to dismiss the cases could have significant legal implications.
If successful, it could set a precedent regarding the appointment and powers of special counsels. Biden's legal team is hopeful that their arguments will resonate with the courts, as they did in the Trump case.
Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison but is expected not to receive the maximum sentence as a first-time offender. His legal team’s strategy is to leverage recent rulings and opinions to challenge the validity of the charges against him.
The motions filed by Biden's lawyers in California and Delaware are the latest development in a series of legal battles he has faced.
As the cases proceed, the arguments surrounding the constitutionality of special counsel appointments will continue to be a focal point.
Hunter Biden's legal team is seeking to dismiss criminal cases against him by arguing that the special counsel prosecuting him was unconstitutionally appointed.
This approach references a recent dismissal in former President Donald Trump's case and draws on opinions from high-profile judicial figures like Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge Aileen Cannon.
The legal arguments focus on the constitutional requirements for appointing U.S. Attorneys and the overreach of special counsel powers. As Biden's legal battles continue, the implications of these arguments could influence the broader legal landscape.
