Hunter Biden Defense Ridiculed as ‘House of Cards’ by DOJ Prosecutors

Hunter Biden’s defense in his tax-related charges was ridiculed on Friday as Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors called it a “house of cards.”

The DOJ announced a tax-related indictment of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden‘s son, in December, saying that, instead of paying his taxes, he spent huge sums of money “on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature” including over $70,000 on drug rehabilitation. DOJ special counsel David Weiss, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, brought the charges against him and has been investigating the president’s son since 2018. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to nine felony and misdemeanor charges during an arraignment hearing in Los Angeles on January 11. The president’s son is accused of attempting to evade payment of $1.4 million in personal taxes owed from 2016 to 2019.

On Friday, federal prosecutors filed their opposition in response to efforts by Hunter Biden’s attorneys to dismiss the charges.

According to the court documents, lawyers from Weiss’ office rejected Hunter Biden’s claim that the case against him was politically motivated, stating that it is “nothing more than a house of cards.”

“The defendant’s conspiratorial ‘upped the ante’ claim is nothing more than a house of cards…The defendant concocts a conspiracy theory that the prosecution has ‘upped the ante’ to appease politicians who have absolutely nothing to do with the prosecution and are not even members of the current Executive Branch,” prosecutors wrote.

Newsweek has reached out to Hunter Biden’s attorney via email for comment.

The president’s son argues that the additional charges, which were brought after a plea deal fell apart last year, came amid pressure from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

However in response, Weiss’ team said prosecutors had signed proposed agreements for Hunter Biden’s plea “weeks after politicians had railed against them.”

“The defendant fails to explain how…