Below is a revised and improved version of the content:
[Introduction]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Today, we have the privilege of speaking with Abbe Lowell, the attorney representing Hunter Biden. Thank you for joining us in person, Mr. Lowell.
ABBE LOWELL: It’s a pleasure to be here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let’s dive right into the recent impasse in the plea deal. Can you shed some light on why this happened?
LOWELL: If you were present in court on July 26 or followed the proceedings, you may have wondered, like you just asked, “why?” There are only a few possibilities. It was the prosecutors who initiated the conversation about a potential resolution. They had the responsibility to draft the document and clarify its contents. So, the possibilities are limited to them either not being clear in their intentions, misleading the defense, or changing their stance while in court. To answer your question, let me pose one in return. Which group of seasoned defense attorneys would allow their client to plead guilty to a misdemeanor on one day, knowing that a felony charge could be brought forth just days later? That simply wouldn’t happen.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How did such a fundamental disagreement occur regarding the extent of immunity for your client? This seems to be at the heart of the issue discussed in the July transcript.
LOWELL: Indeed, it came down to a disagreement on the level of immunity and a few other matters concerning the judge’s role in the proceedings. As for how this disagreement happened, the three possibilities I mentioned before remain relevant. The prosecutors drafted the language and insisted on it. We, on the other hand, understood it to guarantee broad immunity. The judge even acknowledged that the language used was quite extensive. Therefore, one of these possibilities must have occurred. And it’s important to reiterate that no defense attorney, especially someone like Mr. Biden who had a strong legal team, would allow their client to agree to a misdemeanor charge one day and risk facing a felony charge just a few days later.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you implying that the government prosecutors were incompetent?
LOWELL: I’m presenting three possibilities without making any specific claims.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The US Attorney has stated that due to this impasse, a trial will proceed. Can you avoid a trial?
LOWELL: While a trial becomes a natural path after a failed plea agreement like this, it is not inevitable. Now, to answer your question about avoiding a trial, the answer is yes. But first, let me respond to the previous question. When a resolution is not reached and the defendant pleads not guilty, as Hunter Biden did, the court sets forth a scheduling order that ultimately leads to a trial. This is why the statement about a trial was made in the first place. Now, to address your second question, it is indeed possible to avoid a trial. We have always sought to avoid trial, and so did the prosecutors who approached us with the possibility of a resolution outside of prosecution. They wanted to find a resolution, and perhaps they still do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I see. Now, moving on to the gun possession diversion agreement and the tax-related charges, is the diversion agreement still in effect?
LOWELL: There are two separate agreements at play here, as you correctly pointed out. On July 26, the prosecution presented the diversion agreement, which both parties, including ourselves, signed. This agreement is standalone and independent, with bilateral agreement from both sides. It differs from the plea agreement, which did not progress. However, the diversion agreement has already been filed in court and carries the necessary signatures to make it binding.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe it will remain binding?
LOWELL: I believe that if—
MARGARET BRENNAN: That Mr. Weiss will uphold it?
LOWELL: I cannot predict what might happen, considering the events that unfolded on July 26. One possibility is that the prosecutors, for various reasons apparent to viewers, might have changed their minds about the deal they had initially approved. Therefore, I cannot provide a definitive answer. What I can tell you is that the prosecutors themselves, in a recent court filing, referred to it as a bilateral agreement between the parties. If it is indeed a bilateral agreement, then it remains in effect.
MARGARET BRENNAN: During the court proceedings on that day, Judge Maryellen Noreika raised questions about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Is your client being investigated for potential violations of FARA?
LOWELL: Our client has been subject to a thorough, in-depth investigation spanning five long years. This investigation covered every transaction involving Hunter Biden. With regards to FARA and other alleged wrongdoings like corruption or money laundering, all of these matters were examined with scrutiny by the prosecutor’s office. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that FARA was part of their investigation. However, I cannot speak to whether or not the immunity would cover this aspect. But let me clarify that the conclusion drawn after five years was that only two charges, relating to the failure to file, were appropriate misdemeanors. The gun charge involved possession for only 11 days. Everything else has been exhaustively investigated. Should the special counsel decide to deviate from this conclusion, it would suggest factors beyond facts and legal considerations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We need to take a break now and will resume this conversation on the other side. Stay with us, Abbe Lowell.
*COMMERCIAL BREAK*
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We are continuing our discussion with Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell. Let’s pick up where we left off before the break–
LOWELL: –I understand that we were a bit rushed. To directly answer your question, it is essential to remember that even with Mr. Weiss’s recent change in title, he has remained the same person he has been for the past five years. He is a Republican U.S. attorney appointed by a Republican president and attorney general. His team of prosecutors, during the course of these five years, examined every aspect of Hunter Biden’s involvement, whether it relates to taxes, guns, or any other potential charges. So, if there were any changes to his initial conclusions, which was limited to two tax misdemeanors and a gun charge, one must inquire about external influences on the process that deviate from the facts and legal analysis.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Or could new evidence emerge? Can you confidently say that your client won’t face further criminal charges?
LOWELL: I am confident that if the prosecutor continues to evaluate the facts, evidence, and law consistent with the past five years, the previous conclusion reached on July 26 will remain. As for new evidence, there is none to be found. Some of these transactions date back years, and the Grand Jury process and data review have been exhaustive. I don’t have crystal ball insights into their plans, but if the special counsel were to deviate from the pre-existing deal, it would suggest considerations beyond the facts and the law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We need to conclude our conversation here. Thank you, Abbe Lowell, for your time.
LOWELL: Thank you for having me.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
