Hunter Biden’s Attorneys Face Sanctions For Lying To Remove Whistleblower Testimony

Delaware Judge Maryellen Noreika has threatened Hunter Biden’s attorneys with sanctions unless they explain a fake phone call to a clerk asking that IRS whistleblower testimony be removed from his case.

On Tuesday, a report from the Daily Mail revealed that the judge had excoriated the attorneys after she discovered the scheme.

The plot was uncovered after House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) alerted Noreika that someone had made a phone call to the court clerk misrepresenting herself as Smith’s attorney. The woman on the call requested that 448 pages of congressional testimony from IRS whistleblowers be removed from Hunter Biden’s case.

After Smith’s actual attorney informed the clerk that this was an error, a message was sent to Hunter Biden’s attorney asking about the matter. The attorney responded by falsely claiming that the clerk had taken down the IRS whistleblowers’ testimony on his own — but Smith has provided evidence that the request actually came from a staffer who has connections to Hunter Biden’s attorneys.

Noreika is now demanding answers from Hunter Biden’s attorneys, threatening them with sanctions if they do not explain the incident.

“It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the clerk’s office to remove the amicus materials from the docket,” the judge wrote in her order.

“Therefore, it is hereby ordered that, on or before 9pm today on July 25, 2023, counsel for defendant shall show cause as to why sanctions should not be considered for misrepresentations to the court,” Noreika added.

Smith had previously requested that Noreika throw out the “sweetheart deal” that Hunter Biden received from his father’s Department of Justice, submitting a court filing urging the judge consider the testimony from IRS whistleblowers that alleges political interference in the investigation into Hunter’s tax fraud and gun violations.

“The Defendant appears to have benefited from political interference which calls into question the propriety of the investigation of the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” Smith’s argued attorney in the court filing, adding: “it is critical that the Court consider the Whistleblower Materials before determining whether to accept the Plea Agreement.”