Transcript: Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden's attorney, on "Face the Nation," August 13, 2023
The following is a transcript of an interview with Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden's attorney, that aired on "Face the Nation" on August 13, 2023.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Joining us now is Hunter Biden's attorney, Abbe Lowell. Good to have you here in person.
ABBE LOWELL: It's nice to be here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So let's start with why this plea deal hit the impasse.
LOWELL: So if you were in court or read about what happened on July the 26th, you have to ask yourself, as you just asked me, "why?" And there are only a few possibilities. Remember, it were the prosecutors who came forward and asked if there was a resolution possible. They're in charge of figuring out the form, the document, and the language. They did that. And so the possibilities are only, one, they wrote something and weren't clear what they meant. Two, they knew what they meant, and misstated it to counsel. Or third, they changed their view as they were standing in court in Delaware. So to answer that question, I'll ask you a question. And everybody else who's paying attention, what group of experienced defense lawyers would allow their client to plead guilty to a misdemeanor on a Monday, keeping in mind that they knew that there could be a felony charge on a Wednesday? That wouldn't happen.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How could there be such a fundamental disagreement on this issue of how broad immunity would be for your client? Because that's what I understand it came down to it in that transcript from July.
LOWELL: It did come down to fundamentally that and then a couple of issues as to what a judge's role could be in the proceedings that the prosecutors wrote the documents for. And how could it happen? I gave you the three possibilities. They wrote the language. They insisted on that language.They insisted on two different documents.
MARGARET BRENNAN: With the understanding that it would be broad immunity?
LOWELL: With our understanding that it would be broad immunity. And the language, as the judge pointed out, is a very broad phrase. It says encompassing all the facts that were in the document that sets out the transactions. So what happened is one of three possibilities. And I again point out, that no good defense attorney and this- and Mr. Biden had quite a few of them would allow somebody to do a misdemeanor on a Monday thinking that three days later, there could be a felony.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you saying that the government prosecutors are incompetent?
LOWELL: I'm saying there's one of three possibilities.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And that was one of them is what you're suggesting?
LOWELL: I wouldn't say- I didn't use that word, you did. I said that they changed their decision on the fly standing up in court.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The US Attorney said, due to this impasse, a trial is in order. Is a trial going to happen? Can you avoid one?
LOWELL: Well, the answer to the second question is you can but let me answer the first question. When you do not have a resolution and somebody pleads not guilty, as Hunter did, then two things happen. A judge put together a scheduling order, the end of which would be a trial. There'd be discovery and motions, etc. So that's why that statement was made.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So it's not inevitable?
LOWELL: It's not inevitable. And I think what--
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you're trying to avoid one?
LOWELL: Yes, we were trying to avoid one all along. And so were the prosecutors who came forward to us, and we're the ones to say, "can there be a resolution short of a prosecution?" So they wanted it and maybe they still do want it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So that was dealing primarily with the tax-related charges. There was also this diversion agreement related to the gun possession, is that part of the agreement still in effect?
LOWELL: So there are two different agreements, as you point out. And on July 26, what was very clear is that the prosecution presented the diversion agreement, which they signed, which we signed, and as an agreement of which they have described it as being a standalone, independent bilateral agreement with two signatures on it. That agreement is different than the plea. The plea has not fallen, the plea did not go forward. The diversion agreement is already filed in court and it has the signatures necessary for it to be binding,
MARGARET BRENNAN: You believe that it will remain binding?
LOWELL: I believe that if–
MARGARET BRENNAN: That Weiss is sticking with it?
LOWELL: I can't answer what- look what happened on July 26. One of the possibilities is the prosecutor stood up and decided for lots of reasons that might be apparent to the viewer. They didn't like what people were saying about the deal they approved. And so I can't answer that. What I can say is that as recently as in the last week or two, they made a filing at court, they being the prosecutors, which called it a bilateral agreement between the parties. And if it's a bilateral agreement between the parties. It's an agreement that's in effect.
MARGARET BRENNAN: One of the things that Judge Maryellen Noreika brought up in court that day was she said the foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, she asked specifically, whether that would be handled within the scope of this deal? Is your client being investigated for that?
LOWELL: Our client has been investigated in a five year, long, thorough painstaking investigation for every transaction that he was involved in.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But she specifically asked if immunity would cover that.
LOWELL: But you asked me whether or not that has been part of the investigation and after five years and what we know happened in the grand jury, of course that had to be part of what the prosecutor has already looked at, as well as every other false allegation made by the right wing media and others, whether it's corruption or FARA, or money laundering. That was part of what this prosecutor's office had to have been looking over for five years. I can assure you that five years concluded that the only two charges that made sense were two misdemeanors for failing to file like millions of Americans do, and a diverted gun charge for the 11 days that Hunter possessed a gun. Everything else had been thoroughly looked at. So is that possible that they're going to revisit it? Let me answer it one way. If the now Special Counsel decides not to go by the deal, then it will mean that he or they decided that something other than the facts and the law are coming into play.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We have to take a break and finish this conversation on the other side of it. Stick with us, Abbe Lowell.
*COMMERCIAL BREAK*
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face The Nation. We want to continue our conversation with Hunter Biden's attorney, Abbe Lowell. Let's pick up on where we left off before the break--
LOWELL: --Because I know we were a little rushed. So to answer your question squarely. People should keep in mind that while Mr. Weiss' title changed last week, he's the same person he's been for the last five years. He's a Republican U.S. attorney appointed by a Republican president and attorney general, who had career prosecutors working this case for five years, looking at every transaction that Hunter was involved in. So whether it was tax or the gun, or possible any other charge, if anything changes from his conclusion, which was two tax misdemeanors, and a diverted gun charge. The question should be asked: what infected the process that was not the facts and the law?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Or new evidence? I mean, are you confident your client won't face new criminal charges?
LOWELL: I'm confident that if this prosecutor does what has been done for the last five years, look at the facts, the evidence and the law, then the only conclusion can be what the conclusion was on July 26. It's new evidence, there's no new evidence to be found. Some of these transactions are years old. They've had people in the Grand Jury, they've had data that was provided to them. I don't know the possibility exists after this kind of painstaking investigation for them to be "oh, my gosh, there's a new piece of evidence which changes." The only thing that will change is the scrutiny on some of the charges, for example, the gun charge.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is it your position that Joe Biden was completely walled off from hunters business affairs? As you know, this is a focus in Congress.
LOWELL: I understand and my opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the facts and the evidence. And the facts and the evidence that have been pursued by however many members of Congress and their staffs and media, looking for any possible connection has shown time and time again, it doesn't exist. If the most people that are criticizing the Biden family is- is that when the President calls his son every day and it goes on the speakerphone, he says "hello" to the people in the room. That is not an offense, that is nothing other than a loving father.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the illusion of access is something- is a phrase that was used by some in the room when Devon Archer, his former business partner, testified. But these foreign interests are very much being scrutinized. And within that plea memorandum that was released, it details a number of Hunter Biden's financial transactions. He was in the throes of addiction. He wasn't able to pay his taxes at that time. But he also had income from a Chinese business conglomerate, an infrastructure investment company, a Ukrainian energy company, Romanian business, is there any chance that any of this crossed a line?
LOWELL: If you say "crossed the line." Here's again, what we know: five years, thorough investigation, looking at the Chinese, the energy company, the other foreign businesses he did. That was not something that wasn't looked at. Think of it this way. What did this group of prosecutors who are Republicans appointed by Donald Trump, what did they have as a motive to turn the other way to anything that they found that would have indicated wrongdoing against Hunter Biden? There was none. And that's what's missing in the equation. Everybody keeps yelling that this was some sort of deal that was too good. What's not too good- what it's about it is that it reflects the five year investigation, and no one has come up with a reason why anybody who was on the prosecution team would have gone easy on Hunter Biden if any of that that you just set out had ever been the case. So the answer is, confident that after five years, nothing should change other than the fact that Mr. Weiss now has a new title.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be tracking what happens next, Abbe, with your work and Hunter Biden. We'll be right back.