The Blubber

Per Politico

In Halloween of 2022, Hunter Biden's attorney, Chris Clark, expressed dissatisfaction. Just weeks prior, news had leaked about federal agents potentially charging his client for unlawfully purchasing a firearm as a drug user.

Clark deemed the leak "illegal" and addressed the U.S. attorney overseeing the investigation, arguing that prosecuting Biden might be perceived as purely politically motivated and could even infringe on the Second Amendment.

A notable threat accompanied the message: If the Justice Department proceeded to charge the president's son, Biden's legal team would call the president as a witness.

“In any criminal trial, President Biden now unquestionably would be a fact witness for the defense,” Clark articulated in a 32-page communication reviewed by POLITICO.

The extensive letter, along with over 300 pages of formerly undisclosed emails and documents exchanged between Hunter Biden's legal representatives and prosecutors, unveils a fresh perspective on the complex negotiations that nearly yielded a comprehensive plea agreement. Such an arrangement could have resolved Biden's primary legal concerns, encompassing the firearm acquisition and his tax payment delinquencies. Furthermore, it might have shielded Biden from future prosecution by a Justice Department under Republican leadership.

These documents delineate the collapse of the proposed deal—a sudden shift prompted by Republican opposition and judicial inquiries. This collapse has revived the possibility of Biden facing trial, coinciding with his father's intensifying reelection efforts for 2024.

The case has always been characterized by its political ramifications, a factor also influencing Biden's legal team. The private negotiations with prosecutors, as revealed by the documents, illustrate how Biden's lawyers frequently invoked the case's distinct political undertones. They indicated to prosecutors that congressional Republican pressure was inappropriately influencing the investigation. Notable names like Donald Trump, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a lawyer's unsuccessful prosecution tied to Hillary Clinton were mentioned. The lawyers argued that pursuing the case would tarnish the Justice Department's reputation.

They further posited that a trial involving the president's son would lead to political and constitutional turmoil by placing the president in opposition to his own Justice Department. As Clark wrote, "This of all cases justifies neither the spectacle of a sitting President testifying at a criminal trial nor the potential for a resulting Constitutional crisis."