specifically that the pleaing to two tax misdemeanors would somehow immunize hunter from future charges of any kind. the other and our producer jay gibeson has been in there for hours, it began at 10 a.m., there are no cameras inside, we cannot have electronic devices. i went in because i heard reports they are in recess, they are in recess because judge asked defense and prosecution to sit down. you are not in agreement about the terms of this plea dale and she s questioning very much pleaing to this tax evasion, two misdemeanor charges would protect him and called a diversion clause from the gun charges or any other. and the judge asking the prosecution, is hunter biden under active investigation and the prosecution saying yes. although prosecution would not answer what was under investigation. this is very much a developing situation. it is certainly emily, different from what we thought would be short, routine plea deal. when the court session began, hunter biden said he
issue, only this time her answer was different. she said that she had been asked the question a million times and the answer, quote, remains the same. but, in fact, the first time, instead of saying the president had never spoken to hunter about his business dealings, she said this. the president was never in business with his son. so on wednesday, phil wegman from real clear politics pointed out the inconsistency, but john pierr pierre insisted it was the same. i just want to clear this up once for all. the president has said he s never discussed overseas business dealings with his son, but the white house now says that the president has never been in business with his son. so why the updated language? which statement is true? or is it semantics and they are both true? as i stated on monday, when i was asked this question multiple times, nothing has changed. nothing has changed. nothing has changed on this. and so you can ask me a million different ways on this quest
For harsh treatment because of republican vendettas and a desire to distract from donald trump s third indictment. but ilene o connor, who headed the justice department tax division from 2001 to 2007, wrote in the wall street journal that he was singledut for a differenreon. for favorable treatment. d that anyone else in this situation would probably go to prison. fomany years, it has been justice department policy to charge the most serious offense that can be proven, unquote. mr. garland changed that policy in december of 2022, the tax division manual still provides that prosecutors have specifically prohibited for permitting a defendant to plead to a misdemeanor when the elements of a felony can be proven. and according to the whistleblowers accounts, that s what s happening here. i have said before that my gut tells me that any lapse of judgment on joe s part was motivated more by a desire to save a son from addiction than
Level. it is leveraging to plea deal, which is why there is such a high conviction rate, everyone pleas, the ones se serves 50 yes plus went before a jury of their peers and within the tax division manual, you are unable to allow or account for a misdemeanor if the elements of a felony can be proven. believe me, if is there is something the government takes seriously, all my years as federal and state criminal attorney, it is their notion of a lost dollar. it is their notion of a dollar of the government s being taken away. punch someone on the subway issue murder a bunch of people, no problem. if it is about money and government income, they will come after you with every felony they have. you are right, charles hurt, thank you. now we bring in jonathan turley on the phone right now. constitutional law, law