patrick.net

Notice the way the Judge made very clear to chose the language to establish that the case isn't over because there's still an ongoing investigation.
When ever has anyone ever been in sentencing for a crime, and "Ongoing investigation" was ever brought up? Plea Deals are the end all, end all.. Done and done.

The Plea deal is back on, but now provides language that the DOJ, McCabe and Garland can use to shield themselves from answering question and being held accountable for the double standards. Because of an ongoing investigation.
It's so transparently pathetic.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/hunter-biden-plea-deal-back-leaves-open-potential/

So, Hunter is 1. sex offender 2. gun offender 3. tax cheat 4. reckless driver (took video of himself driving 170 mph) 5. consorts with hookers and has a child out of wedlock 6. fucked his deceased brother's widow.

I hope someday he gets well and truly fucked and his lame senile creep father too.

I would love to see Biden in a chair in the joint drolling.

Finally an Ex Clinton official that agrees with me.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/07/26/ex-prosecutor-wu-doj-will-say-hunter-probe-ongoing-as-shield-from-oversight-doj-has-reason-to-seek-cover/

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.”

Tenpoundbass says

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?

Good point, could be that the DOJ has concluded that rather than the most obvious possible corruption, they want to go for the usual "ongoing investigation" kind of corruption, which looks slightly better, and still results in nothing at all ever happening to Hunter for his many felonies.

I still enjoy headlines like this though:

PeopleUnited says

Ok but what is the endgame here? Wait until Kummilla is installed and she pardons him?

Until the statute of limitations run out, or until the Democrats take control of congress and dismiss all committees on the subject.

The method for protecting the fraud of the DOJ and DC privileged relationships since the Clinton Years has been "I can't comment on that there's an ongoing investigation."

In the past the DOJ has just simply stonewalled, ignored and feigned ongoing investigation ignorance, until regime chance. Both sides have been saved by the bell deploying this same tactic. Everyone in Congress is well aware what is taking place when they pull that, that includes Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan. But they allow them to skate on it anyway.

If I were them I would simply tell them they are being in dereliction of duty, and bring a vote to floor to remove them or even defund whole departments. .

I'm starting to think that Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz are just as compromised as the rest of them, they way they leave MTG hanging out there every time she calls for heads on a platter and impeachments.. .But I'm sure it's orchestrated by all parties that they would leave her hanging so they didn't actually have to do it and move the needle on the corruption. .

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/rebooting-thursday-july-27-2023-c

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.

"Even in Portland", a signatory that truth, however fragile, starved, isolated, beleaguered, badgered, stuffed, memory holed, struggle sessioned, stifled, beaten down, somehow still raises fledgling shoots past the zombie hordes of willfully self deluded apparatchiks.

Patrick says

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.

Never under estimate any Biden's ability to fuck shit up for everybody. .- A very nervous Obama

If not for this drug addled derelict, I would be worried that everybody is going to get away with everything. But Unless the Deep State takes him Fishing with Fredo. Hunter is going to sink the whole damn ship of fools. The White House Coke will be tied to him before this is over.

Hunters handlers should have left it up to the Corrupt Democrat Judicial apparatus. They have a knack to shop for a sympathetic Judge and an adoring Jury. He would have had all laid bare in a trial, and still had the jury find him not guilty. At least there's the illusion that due process took place.. But by trying to just circumvent it in this blanket immunity, made a bigger mockery than any rigged court could have.

Now it will be up to the DOJ's ability to beat the clock and hope the vote rigging machine can turn Congress over to a more forgiving Partisan Committee.

I think the judges, instead of rigging the decisions, are seeing that their own water wings on the sinking ship might be to toss Hunter over the side, first.

There must be dead air from Switzerland for the Masonic Judicial Cuck-0-sphere.

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.

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/

Trollhole says

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/

Tweet of the same posted here:
https://twitter.com/willscharf/status/1684331594864025602

If you read through this it's completely different than what the OP is saying. I don't even see justification for the OP assessment in the original linked news article. Seems you guys are going off 100% opinion backed by zero facts. In an age when lies are so rampant, I would think people seeking the truth would steer clear of wild speculation.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1684915823884840960

Trollhole says

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/

I don't buy that the judge just stumbled upon the flakey details of the deal, by reading it in court just now.
The case was scuttled, it was easier to do it this way. Rather than Hunter's team being told to rescind the deal, or have the prosecutors call it off without having to explain in better terms. That if the judge signed off on the deal, then DOJ officials can't stonewall Congress or counter investigations. The DOJ and their SOP is nothing more than a giant shield to protect the Corruption in DC. Persecution cases are fast tracked faster than you can say "What the fuck?", while real corruption cases that the majority in plurality would want to see Justice. Are stonewalled, slow walked, and when all else fails, investigated purely to keep details and discovery top secret.

I don't believe that the Judge didn't pick that up when the case was fist filed.

It was no accident that Wray and the DOJ were brought before Committee prior to the sentencing of Hunter's deal. Based on how the oversight hearing went, was how they were going to adjudicate the plea deal. It was obvious that an investigative obstruction was still going to be necessary.
The Judge had a job to do.

Of course Hunter was flustered and agitated in court while the deal was "crumbling". I bet he voted against Plan B, in the AHOD, Oh Fuck what do we do now? meeting. .

You're entire premise has no basis in any factual evidence related to the trial whatsoever. But we should believe that you somehow posses some special insight that eludes a former federal prosecutor, seriously!?

I'll say this again, you will be right when you say federal judges are corrupt most of the time, but not all of the time. In this case you're wrong. Every institution is compromised of people, some good, some bad. But never all good or all bad. Your extreme outlook has caused you to concoct conspiracy theories rather than taking the rather simple explanation put forth by someone with knowledge of the system.

https://notthebee.com/article/this-former-federal-prosecutor-has-a-great-theory-on-what-happened-with-hunter-biden-in-court-this-week

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.

Had to ask ChatGPT what the difference is.

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.