12-02-2024 - Biden Reply in Support of Pardon
Uploaded by
Robert Gouveia12-02-2024 - Biden Reply in Support of Pardon
Uploaded by
Robert GouveiaCase 1:23-cr-00061-MN Document 276 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 5233
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
____________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) Criminal Action No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN
)
ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN, )
)
Defendant. )
)
____________________________________)
MR. BIDEN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS NOTICE OF PARDON
Abbe David Lowell Bartholomew J. Dalton (#808)
Christopher D. Man DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
WINSTON & STRAWN 1106 West 10th Street
1901 L Street NW Wilmington, DE 19806
Washington, DC 20036 Tel.: (302) 652-2050
Tel.: (202) 282-5000 [email protected]
Fax: (202) 282-5100
[email protected]
Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden
Case 1:23-cr-00061-MN Document 276 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 5234
The Special Counsel paradoxically claims that Mr. Biden’s notice is “without any legal
support” in suggesting that his pardon means that the Court should dismiss the Indictment, at the
same time the Special Counsel acknowledges that “‘the majority of courts, when faced with such
a decision, have chosen to dismiss an indictment.’” DE274 at 2, 4 (quoting United States v.
Bannon, No. 20 Cr. 412 (AT), DE117). The Special Counsel’s admission that this is the practice
of the “majority of courts” certainly provides legal support to Mr. Biden’s claim that dismissal is
warranted.
Further undermining the Special Counsel’s claim is his reliance upon an argument that he
acknowledges has already been rejected. The Special Counsel repeats the very argument that the
government made in Bannon, that the Court should administratively terminate the case, rather than
dismiss the Indictment. But the Special Counsel acknowledges that the Bannon court rejected that
argument and dismissed the indictment as to him. This Court should reject that same argument
and dismiss the Indictment as well. As in Bannon, the pardon here comes before sentencing and
before any judgment in the case based on the Indictment (as opposed to pardons being issued post
judgment, often years later). The appropriate course, in this procedural context, is to dismiss the
Indictment.
The Special Counsel’s argument in opposing the dismissal of the Indictment rests on the
non sequitur that the pardon “does not mean the grand jury’s decision to charge him, based on a
finding of probable cause, should be wiped away as if it never occurred.” DE274 at 9. The fact
that Mr. Biden has been indicted will remain true even with a dismissal of the Indictment, just as
it would remain true even if Mr. Bident had been acquitted at trial. It is not wiped away as if it
never occurred. Neither a dismissal nor an acquittal eliminates the fact of indictment; they merely
reflect that an indictment has been resolved. The pardon here before sentencing prevents this case
1
Case 1:23-cr-00061-MN Document 276 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 5235
from running its course based on the Indictment that was filed. The Court should reflect that by
dismissing the Indictment and indicating—accurately—that is due to the pardon.
Finally, the Special Counsel highlights that the cover email that he was sent from the Pardon
Attorney with the pardon warrant itself contained an obvious error suggesting that the pardon
would be effective “after completion of sentence.” DE274-1 at 2. The pardon itself has no such
condition, and the Pardon Attorney has no authority to restrict a pardon granted by the President.
Moreover, the Pardon Attorney has since emailed a correction to the parties stating: “Please be
advised that the notation of ‘after completion of sentence’ was included in error.” (12/2/24 email
to counsel (Ex. A).)1 Mr. Biden’s pardon was effective upon issuance by the President and this
Court should respect that decision by dismissing the Indictment as is the relief granted by courts
addressing pardons at this moment in the process.
Dated: December 2, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Abbe David Lowell
Bartholomew J. Dalton (#808) Abbe David Lowell
DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Christopher D. Man
1106 West 10th Street WINSTON & STRAWN
Wilmington, DE 19806 1901 L Street NW
Tel.: (302) 652-2050 Washington, D.C. 20036
[email protected] Tel.: (202) 282-5000
Fax: (202) 282-5100
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden
1 The Special Counsel also commits the obvious error of complaining that Mr. Biden’s legal
arguments have been rejected by eleven different judges, counting the judges on the Third Circuit
and Ninth Circuit who found they lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Biden’s interlocutory
appeals. DE274 at 1, 8. Plainly, a dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction is not a rejection of Mr.
Biden’s arguments on the merits.
2
Case 1:23-cr-00061-MN Document 276 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 5236
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 2, 2024, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Abbe David Lowell
Abbe David Lowell
