Comments 1 - 40 of 42 Next » Last » Search these comments
On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Inside Politics,” former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu, who worked in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration, stated that the DOJ’s assertion during the Hunter Biden plea hearing that the investigation is ongoing will be “like a complete shield” for the Department of Justice to avoid oversight from Congress and that while one reason for the posture that the investigation is ongoing could be simply because a plea deal hadn’t been reached, but another potential reason is for that “political cover” to duck Congress. “And that will help him when he goes to the Hill to say, oh, I have an ongoing investigation, can’t talk about it.”
And that will help him when he goes to the Hill to say, oh, I have an ongoing investigation, can’t talk about it.”
Ok but what is the endgame here? Wait until Kummilla is installed and she pardons him?
Meanwhile, even people who live in Portland know Hunter has been hauling in millions from foreign actors, for years and years, not just with one phone call, but with many calls, meetups, tweets, handoffs, and WhatApps, and who knows what other unsanitary forms of communication, in exchange for explicit help getting the foreigners’ policies advanced in the U.S.
It’s not even in dispute.
According to corporate media, Hunter’s plea deal was supposedly always only about his income tax problem and his gun possession charge. But ever since the story broke, I’ve predicted it would somehow wind up with Hunter getting complete immunity for everything, including his much more serious FARA problems (especially serious in light of how assiduously the DOJ has been applying FARA to the eensiest contact between any Republican and a foreign citizen).
It was a three hour hearing. The simple version is that, while the judge was preparing to approve Hunter’s deal, she discovered — buried deeply in the fine print, so deeply it would have been trivially easy to miss — a lone citation to an odd statute number of a much broader type of release, a statute so broad and so universal that it is almost never ever used. As a result, the judge variously described the proposed Hunter plea deal as “not standard, not what I normally see,” possibly “unconstitutional,” without legal precedent, and maybe even “not worth the paper it is printed on.”
Since nobody could seem to agree, Judge Noreika asked the government to state on the record whether or not the single reference to the global release statute would give Hunter complete immunity from all possible crimes. She specifically mentions as an example any potential FARA violations. The Judge also asked the DOJ’s lawyers whether there were any ongoing investigations that might be affected by the release.
Curtly admitting only that “yes,” some kind of investigation continued, the DOJ lawyers explained the government did not intend for Hunter to get a complete release. They said their deal was only for a limited release as to just the tax issues and the gun charge.
That’s when the S.S. Hunter Biden capsized.
According to the Times, right after the government insisted FARA wasn’t included in the release — in spite of the way the deal had been written — Hunter (who should have let his lawyers talk) broke his silence, angrily snapping at the judge that he would never agree to a deal without broad immunity. Around the same time, his lawyer was jumping up and barking that the deal was now off, “null and void.” Hunter’s lawyer said the deal was not only for the tax and gun issues, but insisted the agreement was also for all other potential crimes related to Hunter’s financially-rewarding “consulting deals” with foreign companies in Ukraine, China and Romania.
A chaotic courtroom scene ensued, delighting the 30-odd reporters in the gallery, who’d been hoping for some kind of fireworks, but never dreamed of a courtroom field event like this. All the involved parties were upset. The DOJ lawyers were upset their sly trickery was exposed. Hunter and his lawyers were upset that they lost their sweetheart deal. And the Judge was upset that the DOJ and Hunter tried to fool her into making a giant error.
At the end of the day, Hunter formally withdrew his “guilty” plea and pleaded “not guilty” instead. Then Judge Noreika entered a sensational pretrial release agreement ordering Hunter to comply with a bunch of standards requirements like reporting international travel plans, avoiding drugs and alcohol, and getting a job. This is the kind of thing that can happen after the judge starts to hate you for impersonating the other side and involving the court in a fraud.
Still, it could have been worse. But not much worse. Hunter and the DOJ attorneys will now try to reboot the plea deal into something the Judge will accept. There’s no way they will ever try this case.
Hunter (who should have let his lawyers talk) broke his silence, angrily snapping at the judge that he would never agree to a deal without broad immunity. Around the same time, his lawyer was jumping up and barking that the deal was now off, “null and void.” Hunter’s lawyer said the deal was not only for the tax and gun issues, but insisted the agreement was also for all other potential crimes related to Hunter’s financially-rewarding “consulting deals” with foreign companies in Ukraine, China and Romania.
Hunter is going to sink the whole damn ship of fools.
Good write up on what went down:
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/27/how-a-federal-judge-turned-the-tables-on-hunter-bidens-plea-deal/
Good write up on what went down:
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/27/how-a-federal-judge-turned-the-tables-on-hunter-bidens-plea-deal/
Typically, if the Government is offering to a defendant that it will either drop charges or decline to bring new charges in return for the defendant's guilty plea, the plea is structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A). An agreement not to prosecute Hunter for FARA violations or other crimes in return for his pleading guilty to the tax misdemeanors, for example, would usually be a (c)(1)(A) plea. This is open, transparent, subject to judicial approval, etc.
In Hunter's case, according to what folks in the courtroom have told me, Hunter's plea was structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), which is usually just a plea in return for a joint sentencing recommendation only, and contained no information on its face about other potential charges, and contained no clear agreement by DOJ to forego prosecution of other charges.
Instead, DOJ and Hunter's lawyers effectively hid that part of the agreement in what was publicly described as a pretrial diversion agreement relating to a § 922(g)(3) gun charge against Hunter for being a drug user in possession of a firearm.
That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually MUCH broader than just the gun charge. If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented DOJ from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere.
So they put the facts in the plea agreement, but put their non-prosecution agreement in the pretrial diversion agreement, effectively hiding the full scope of what DOJ was offering and Hunter was obtaining through these proceedings. Hunter's upside from this deal was vast immunity from further prosecution if he finished a couple years of probation, and the public wouldn't be any the wiser because none of this was clearly stated on the face of the plea agreement, as would normally be the case.
Judge Noreika smelled a rat. She understood that the lawyers were trying to paint her into a corner and hide the ball. Instead, she backed DOJ and Hunter's lawyers into a corner by pulling all the details out into the open and then indicating that she wasn't going to approve a deal as broad as what she had discovered.
DOJ, attempting to save face and save its case, then stated on the record that the investigation into Hunter was ongoing and that Hunter remained susceptible to prosecution under FARA. Hunter's lawyers exploded. They clearly believed that FARA was covered under the deal, because as written, the pretrial diversion agreement language was broad enough to cover it. They blew up the deal, Hunter pled not guilty, and that's the current state of play.
And so here we are. Hunter's lawyers and DOJ are going to go off and try to pull together a new set of agreements, likely narrower, to satisfy Judge Noreika. Fortunately, I doubt if FARA or any charges related to Hunter's foreign influence peddling will be included, which leaves open the possibility of further investigations leading to further prosecutions.
The TL;DR version is that Judge Noreika...
...was concerned about the DOJ colluding to shield the son of the current president from future prosecution and called them out on it.
The DOJ, trying to pretend that it is as pure as the driven snow, threw Hunter under the bus at the last moment to keep the scent of scandal off them.
This angered Hunter and his team, so they decided to say "skip it" and go to court.
What is the difference beteween a pretrial diversion agreement and a plea bargain?
ChatGPT
A pretrial diversion agreement and a plea bargain are both legal arrangements used in criminal cases, but they serve different purposes and have distinct outcomes for the defendant. Here are the main differences between the two:
Pretrial Diversion Agreement:
Purpose: The primary purpose of a pretrial diversion agreement is to provide an alternative to traditional criminal prosecution for eligible defendants, particularly first-time or non-violent offenders. It aims to address the underlying issues that may have led to the criminal behavior and offer rehabilitation and support rather than punishment.
Eligibility: Pretrial diversion programs are typically available for individuals with minimal or no prior criminal history who are charged with relatively low-level offenses. Eligibility may vary based on the jurisdiction and the specific program's criteria.
Admission of Guilt: In a pretrial diversion agreement, the defendant may not be required to admit guilt or enter a plea. Instead, they agree to participate in the program voluntarily, and successful completion of the program can lead to the charges being dropped or never formally filed.
Conditions: The defendant must fulfill specific conditions outlined in the pretrial diversion agreement. These conditions often include participation in counseling, community service, regular check-ins with a probation officer, or other requirements tailored to the individual's case.
Outcome: If the defendant successfully completes the pretrial diversion program, the charges against them may be dismissed, and they may avoid having a criminal conviction on their record.
Plea Bargain:
Purpose: A plea bargain is a negotiation between the defendant and the prosecution to resolve a criminal case without going to trial. It aims to reach an agreement that is mutually acceptable and saves time and resources for both parties.
Eligibility: Plea bargains can be considered for a broader range of criminal cases, including more serious offenses and for defendants with different criminal histories.
Admission of Guilt: In a plea bargain, the defendant must enter a plea, which can be either a guilty plea (admitting guilt) or a no contest plea (not admitting guilt but accepting the charges). By doing so, the defendant gives up their right to a trial.
Sentence Agreement: The negotiation in a plea bargain often centers on the charges to be filed or dropped and the agreed-upon sentence or punishment. This may result in reduced charges or a recommended sentence to the court.
Outcome: If the defendant accepts the plea bargain and the court approves it, they will be sentenced according to the terms of the agreement. This typically results in a conviction and the criminal record of the defendant.
In summary, a pretrial diversion agreement offers rehabilitation and an opportunity to avoid criminal conviction for eligible first-time or non-violent offenders, while a plea bargain is a negotiation to resolve a criminal case through a guilty or no contest plea with an agreed-upon sentence or charge resolution.
Tenpoundbass says
Hunter is going to sink the whole damn ship of fools.
I suspect that Hunter is trying his hardest to sink that whole damn ship as revenge for Joe sexually abusing him as a boy.
Hunter didn’t just engage in high risk behavior with cocaine and hookers, he did it on camera, uploaded it to porn sites, and left it all on his laptops, which he then abandon at a computer repair shop.
He wasn’t exactly hiding it - if anything, he seemed like he was begging to get caught, to finally experience some of the much-needed consequences that might have changed his life. But they never came then and they won’t be coming now.
You're entire premise has no basis in any factual evidence related to the trial whatsoever.
If all else fails, daddy can pardon him.
You get to give me shit when
But you are not alone in this. I see a lot of regulars on here who flee from facts like they're being chased by mace wielding, antifa shemales. In the age of lies built on lies, shitting out more lies, you people will drown in your mindless opinions. Please read an entire article. Do some real internet searches. Even read a book. Maybe start by reading someone's entire reply/OP/link before you start clacking away.
Wait! What's my action item? What is your position on this?
Comments 1 - 40 of 42 Next » Last » Search these comments
https://beckernews.com/hunter-bidens-sweetheart-plea-deal-dead-and-off-the-table-as-case-falls-apart-in-court-51239/