Hunter Biden’s legal team is seeking to dismiss criminal charges against the first son by asserting that the special counsel prosecuting him was improperly appointed, articulating a stance similar to recent arguments made in former President Donald Trump's classified documents case.

The surprising motion filed by Hunter Biden's legal team -- which cites a conservative Supreme Court justice -- highlight constitutional challenges regarding the appointment processes for special counsels and could greatly impact the defendant's criminal cases, as the Washington Examiner reports.

Hunter Biden Seeks Dismissal, Citing Trump Case

Hunter Biden's attorneys have filed motions to dismiss criminal charges against him in both California and Delaware. They cited a recent decision regarding the dismissal of former President Donald Trump's classified documents case as precedent.

In Trump's case, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that special counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. That decision prompted Hunter Biden’s legal team to argue that U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who prosecuted Biden, was likewise unconstitutionally appointed.

Quotation from Justice Clarence Thomas

One key argument from Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, referenced Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in a Supreme Court ruling that granted presidents immunity for official acts. This opinion was leveraged as part of the case’s constitutional challenge.

“Guided by Justice Thomas’ opinion, Judge Cannon dismissed an indictment against President Trump earlier this week because the Special Counsel was unconstitutionally appointed,” said Hunter Biden’s legal team in its motion. They further argued, “Mr. Biden moves to dismiss the indictment brought against him because the Special Counsel who initiated this prosecution was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause as well."

Arguments Based on Constitutional Clauses

Cannon's dismissal of Trump's case had cited violations of the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause. This ruling has been appealed by Jack Smith.

Hunter Biden faced indictment on three felony counts for allegedly lying on a federal firearms form, a conviction reached by a Delaware jury in June. He is also awaiting trial in Los Angeles for federal tax crimes and is using the same arguments to seek dismissal of those charges.

The first son's legal team contends that the latest rulings justify the dismissal of his indictments, citing the similar overreach in the powers delegated to special counsels.

Special Counsel Powers and Congressional Intent

In their motion, Hunter Biden’s lawyers argued, “Mere U.S. Attorneys do not have that power. Given that Congress requires a U.S. Attorney to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it makes no sense to assume that Congress would allow the Attorney General to unilaterally appoint someone as Special Counsel with equal or greater power than a U.S. Attorney.”

Cannon had noted in her discussion that a special counsel holds broader powers than a conventional U.S. Attorney. Hunter Biden's attorneys also argue that Weiss overstepped these powers by filing cases in multiple jurisdictions.

Contrasting Weiss and Smith's Appointments

One point noted by Hunter Biden’s legal team is that Weiss was already a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney when he was appointed as special counsel, unlike Jack Smith. This distinction plays a crucial role in Hunter Biden’s dismissal request.

Weiss has been involved in a broader investigation, having filed separate charges against a former FBI informant for making false statements about the Bidens. The overlapping issues underline the complexity and broader implications of his appointment.

Despite these defenses, Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison but is not expected to receive the maximum sentence. He has yet to be sentenced for his firearms convictions.

Financial Implications and Pending Sentencing

The tax case against Hunter Biden involves $1.4 million in unpaid taxes over four years, though the amount has since been paid. His legal troubles encompass multiple facets, raising questions about potential overreach and proper legal procedure.

As of now, Hunter Biden is still awaiting a sentencing date for his firearms-related conviction. His legal team continues to push for the dismissal of both the tax and gun-related charges based on the constitutional arguments about the special counsel's appointment.

In conclusion, Hunter Biden's legal strategy focuses on questioning the legitimacy of the special counsel prosecuting him by drawing parallels with recent rulings in former President Donald Trump’s case.

His defense team's reliance on constitutional arguments, including opinions by Justice Clarence Thomas, seeks to challenge the established procedures for appointing special counsels, potentially setting new legal precedents.