Judge skeptical of Hunter Biden's effort to dismiss tax case as politically motivated

To bolster their argument, the defense points to comments by Wise in July, who said in court that the agreement “is a contract between the parties so it’s in effect until it’s either breached or a determination [of breach has been made], period.”

Federal prosecutors dispute that the diversion agreement is in force because a federal probation officer in Delaware had not formally approved it.

Scarsi signaled doubt about the immunity clause still being valid despite the fact that the plea deal fell apart, asking, “Why would Mr. Biden plead guilty if he already had immunity?”

The remaining motions to dismiss allege technical errors in the case: that one count, based on taxes for 2016, is barred by the statute of limitations; that three counts each contain two offenses in the same charge; and that four of the charges should not have been filed in California, because they say that Biden did not officially reside in the Golden State until summer 2019.

The judge doubted whether he could rule on the venue question.

“It seems that this is going to be a question of fact for the jury to decide,” Scarsi said. “I’m hamstrung on making any ruling on venue.”

Biden’s final motion focuses on the 2019 tax year, arguing that charging him for failing to pay his taxes that year is “selective and vindictive” prosecution. Defense lawyers note that Biden filed his tax return on time that year, which coincided with the IRS’ pandemic-related deadline extensions, and paid his taxes two years later, with penalties and interest.

Biden’s lawyers say they have not found “a single case” in which a defendant filed his tax return on time in 2019 but was charged for not paying on time.

“When a taxpayer has paid all they owe under those circumstances, as Mr. Biden has, criminal tax charges simply are not brought,” the lawyers wrote.