Special prosecutor slams Hunter Biden’s bid to dismiss his indictment after dad Joe’s pardon

Special Counsel David Weiss says Hunter Biden’s tax crimes can’t be dismissed — despite his father’s presidential pardon.

Hunter’s lawyers filed papers asking a California judge to dismiss the case once Joe Biden pardoned him on Sunday.

But in a response Monday, Weiss, the senior Justice Department official who led the prosecution against criminal First Son, argued it’s not that simple.

In their filing, Weiss and his prosecutors Leo Wise and Derek Hines condemned Hunter’s attorneys for trying to “erase guilt” and erase the shocking acts he admitted in court.

They said the court should instead close the case with a note recognizing Hunter’s presidential pardon but putting his guilty plea on the record, along with the official finding that prosecutors’ charges of debauchery, intentional tax evasion and political perversion were true.

DoJ officials accused Hunter’s Washington DC attorney, Abbe Lowell, of ‘misrepresentation'[ing] the law,” adding that “Nothing requires that the charges in this case be dismissed.”

The special prosecutor in the case, David Weiss, has opposed the motion, arguing that the charges against the First Son should remain on file despite the pardon.

Joe Biden made the shock announcement Sunday evening that he would grant a presidential pardon to his troubled son Hunter, calling his prosecution “selective” and “unfair.”

They cited previous cases involving Donald Trump’s presidential pardons, such as for Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn, where judges ruled that “a pardon does not erase the guilt or overturn a conviction.”

Weiss also made what could be seen as a veiled jab at President Biden, who claimed in a statement Sunday along with his pardon of his son that Hunter’s prosecutions were politically motivated.

“There was no evidence of vindictive or selective prosecution in this case, nor has there ever been,” Weiss wrote, adding that these claims were judged by courts to be “detached from any evidence or even a coherent theory.”

“The defendant filed eight motions to dismiss the indictment, raising every conceivable argument as to why it should be dismissed, all of which were deemed without merit,” Weiss said.

He pointed to California federal judge Mark Scarsi’s earlier ruling that the defense’s claims that Hunter was singled out for political reasons were “without any evidence.”

“The defendant has made similar baseless allegations in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Those claims were also denied,” Weiss wrote.

The special counsel said that rather than dismissing the case, the usual practice is that “once an executive pardon is filed on the docket, the docket is marked as closed, the disposition is updated to reflect the executive pardon, and the Court takes no further action.”

That way, Hunter’s admission of the charges laid out in a 56-page indictment filed last December would remain on the record.

The president’s son (pictured in January) ultimately pleaded guilty to nine tax evasion charges, including three felonies, after finally agreeing to admit to the crimes in an extraordinary drama at his federal trial in Los Angeles in September

In their filing, the DoJ cited previous cases involving Trump’s presidential pardons, such as for Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn, where judges ruled that “a pardon does not erase the debt or vacate a judgment of conviction.”

The First Son admitted that he had failed to pay taxes on the millions he had made from shady foreign business deals with criminal Chinese businessmen, a Ukrainian oligarch and other foreigners, but had squandered the money on drugs, prostitutes and a lavish lifestyle.

On Monday, conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation released a statement urging House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer to subpoena Hunter to testify again — arguing that the pardon could ultimately push him into a corner for possible perjury.

“What Can Congress Do After Hunter’s Pardon? Representative James Comer could immediately subpoena Hunter for a new deposition,” the Foundation, which helped investigate Hunter, said in the statement.

“If Hunter doesn’t show up, that’s a crime not covered by the pardon.

“If Hunter shows up, he will not be able to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during the period covered by the pardon.”

Normally, under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, anyone has the right to refuse to answer a question that would incriminate him.

But the think tank says Hunter’s pardon for all crimes over the past decade means he must answer questions about that decade honestly or open himself up to perjury charges.

“He should be asked about his perjury in his earlier statement, which appears intended to protect the Biden Crime Family and appears to have been rewarded with a pardon,” the statement said.

‘If he lies again, this is not covered by the pardon and a fair and impartial Public Prosecution Service could prosecute.

“Hunter was just the baggage man. He was the useful addict. Others, like President Biden and Jim Biden, must also be held accountable for their part in the Biden Crime Family.”