The attorney who is serving as the primary legal representative for Hunter Biden in his ongoing federal lawsuit involving tax and gun offenses has formally requested the presiding judge to relieve him of his duties as counsel. This request is motivated by the attorney’s apprehension that his potential role as a witness in the case could compromise his ability to effectively advocate for his client.
On Tuesday morning, Christopher J. Clark filed a motion with a Delaware district court judge, seeking to withdraw as Hunter Biden’s legal representative. This request is motivated by the possibility that Clark may be called upon to provide testimony regarding his role in Hunter’s previous plea agreement with the federal government, which experienced a notable failure in July. Clark referenced the professional conduct regulations that stipulate that “a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.”
“Based on recent developments, it appears that the negotiation and drafting of the plea agreement and diversion agreement will be contested, and Mr. Clark is a percipient witness to those issues,” Clark wrote.
Hunter Biden’s lawyer moves to withdraw as counsel. The reason?
“it appears that the negotiation and drafting of the plea agreement and diversion agreement will be contested,” and he is a witness to those issues. pic.twitter.com/QACCy0mqfL
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) August 15, 2023
Clark has provided legal representation for the son of Hunter Biden, who has been facing a prolonged investigation spanning five years. The investigation pertains to alleged criminal activities including substantial financial gains made by the son while acting as a representative for foreign enterprises that sought to establish connections with his father during the latter’s tenure as vice president. The prior agreement, which was signed in the preceding month, unraveled due to Judge Maryellen Norieka’s inquiry into the extent of the agreement’s coverage regarding Hunter’s refusal to register as a foreign agent while engaging in lobbying activities on behalf of the corporations. The legal representatives acting on behalf of U.S. Attorney David Weiss informed the presiding judge that a specific aspect of their office’s inquiry would not be included, resulting in the withdrawal of both parties from the agreement.
The dialogue between the defense and prosecutors has experienced a recent impasse, prompting U.S. Attorney Merrick Garland to designate Weiss as a special counsel on Friday. This appointment grants Weiss the authority to broaden his investigation into Hunter Biden, extending beyond the confines of Delaware and encompassing other jurisdictions where potential criminal activities involving the controversial first son may have taken place. The U.S. attorneys responsible for these districts opted not to pursue charges and were found to have made political contributions to the electoral campaigns of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
President Biden has demonstrated a strong commitment to his son and has strongly criticized his aides who proposed that he should create space from a situation that is already negatively impacting his poll ratings in comparison to former President Donald Trump. The White House asserts that Weiss’s case remains unaffected by partisan interference, despite allegations made by whistleblowers within the IRS that Justice Department officials impeded investigations that could have shown a connection between President Biden and potentially unlawful actions involving his son.
