Auburnfan91

The Burisma executive emailed Hunter and his associates asking for "deliverables" to close down any case/pursuits against Burisma's owner. A few weeks later VP Joe Biden went to Ukraine to meet the Ukrainian PM and included the removal of Ukraine's top prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma, as a demand for U.S. support.

Hunter's laptop wasn't obtained by the FBI until December 2019. That May 2019 Intercept article is outdated and was before the contents of the laptop were known.

He knew his son was overseas doing "business" and was on speaker phone while Hunter discussed business with his associates. Joe knew Hunter was discussing business, you know when you're on the phone you can hear if people are with the person you're talking to. Just because Joe may or may not have discussed business on the phone with Hunter's business associates is a red herring. He knew the context of what Hunter was calling about. That's the main point.

"illusion" lol It would only be illusion if he didn't have access to his father and didn't have him on the phone 20 times

How many cases did the DOJ not follow their own policy by dropping a felony charge and only keeping the misdemeanor charge instead? How many cases did the DOJ still have an ongoing investigation after a plea deal was agreed to? If it wasn't a sweetheart deal why didn't Biden's lawyers keep the original plea deal?

Bruce Kevin Fleming - 1 year in prison https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-business-personal-taxes-delaware-wilmington-fa7eefcc470693a4854a01406cc43846 Donald Rice - 4 years in prison https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2018/06/08/man-stole-elderly-widow-doj-says-prison/685708002/ Ronald Bright - 6 months in prison https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/de/news/2011/IRS Bright.pdf Raymond R. Medon - 8 months in prison https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/8500t1zv/delaware-district-court/usa-v-medon/ Those are the one's I was able to track down information on through searches. I think it proves that it's not rare for people to serve time for the charge.

The IRS whistleblowers allegations from their interviews with the House Ways and Means Committee wasn't released until days after the plea agreement was announced. Their testimony with the House Oversight and Accountability Committee wasn't until July 19. Hunter's plea agreement was announced the same day the charges were filed on June 20. No one that has been convicted of similar charges that Hunter is charged with has ever had their plea agreement announced the same day the charges were filed. There's no precedent for that.

The DOJ never released the plea deal. Politico had to take pictures with a phone in order for people to know what was in the plea deal. By not releasing the plea deal it only further highlights the DOJ's improper handling of this case. The judge wasn't even able to see Paragraph 15(Agreement Not to Prosecute) until right before the hearing.

Yeah, no two cases are alike because I posted an example of the same prosecutors in 2018 gave someone jail time for LESS than what Hunter Biden did. It's obviously not as rare to serve jail time for similar charges as some claim it is. And those same prosecutors flat out admitted to the judge that there was no precedent for the diversion agreement Hunter received. No one else had ever received such a favorable diversion agreement on similar charges. Yet liberals on here act as though Hunter has actually been treated unfairly because he had to appear in court for his charges.

If it was just Joe Smith, the SOL wouldn't have been allowed to expire on the felonies for 2014 an 2015. The DOJ has bent over backwards to keep Hunter Biden out of jail.

Here's what Ken White said: "and the fact that the diversion agreement requires the judge to make the determination of whether Biden is in breach and therefore loses the benefit of the non-prosecution promise, which she was not comfortable doing and thought perhaps she shouldn’t do. I think she’s wrong on that last one," Isn't White saying that she could have weighed in on the diversion agreement even though judges usually don't? She outright nixed the plea deal because it was vague and because the immunity portion was placed in the diversion agreement which she wouldn't have had authority over.

Ken White goes out of his way to downplay the DOJ's framing of the plea deal and place more burden on Biden's lawyers. The drafting was intentionally broad and vague. Biden's lawyers were doing what was best for their client. The onus is on the DOJ to draft a competent plea agreement that's not vague. Also, not everyone agrees with White that the judge could weigh in on the diversion agreement. Lucian Dervan, a law professor at Belmont University, says that judges usually don't weigh in on diversion agreements. https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321

Hunter Biden paid nothing back. A Hollywood lawyer paid his back taxes. https://nypost.com/2022/05/08/hollywood-lawyer-kevin-morris-paid-off-over-2m-of-hunter-bidens-taxes/

Hunter Biden lawyer accused of misleading clerk to block release of damning evidence By Samuel Chamberlain July 25, 2023 8:06pm Updated First son Hunter Biden’s legal team appeared to pull a dirty trick Tuesday to block the release of damning evidence ahead of his expected guilty plea to federal charges of tax evasion and weapons crimes. The drama began in the morning when the House Ways and Means Committee filed an amicus brief to Delaware US District Judge Maryellen Noreika arguing that the 53-year-old had benefited from “political interference which calls into question the propriety of the investigation” into alleged crimes including money laundering, felony tax evasion and failure to register as a foreign agent. The filing included testimony by two IRS whistleblowers who sat for transcribed interviews May 26 and June 1. What happened next was outlined in a letter sent to the judge Tuesday afternoon by the committee’s top lawyer, Theodore Kittila. “[A]t approximately 1:30 p.m., we received word that our filing was removed from the docket,” Kittila said. “We promptly contacted the Clerk’s office, and we were advised that someone contacted the Court representing that they worked with my office [emphasis original] and that they were asking the Court to remove this from the docket. We immediately advised that this was inaccurate. The Clerk’s Office responded that we would need to re-file. We have done so now.” Kittila included email exchanges with court officials and Hunter Biden’s attorneys in the fresh filing. “Hi Ted, Following up on our recent telephone conversation, the woman who called was a Jessica Bengels,” confirmed court official Samantha Grimes. “… She said she worked with Theodore Kittila and it was important the document was removed immediately or they could file a motion to seal. I do deeply apologize for all the confusion on our part.” Bengels is the director of litigation services at the New York-based law firm of Latham & Watkins, where Hunter Biden attorney Chris Clark was formerly a partner. When Kittila confronted the first son’s legal team, Hunter’s attorneys tried to claim the filing contained confidential tax and identifying information, even though the whistleblower testimony has been public for more than a month. The time stamps from the emails also indicated the request to take the document down was made after Kittila refused a request to file the testimony under seal. “As far as I am aware, the managing attorney from Latham called the clerk’s office to note that personal tax information of the defendant had been filed in a non reacted [sic] manner and to inquire regarding having the information sealed, as we told you we would and as you said you understood,” Clark wrote. “As far as I am aware the clerk took the filing down on their own accord. Your attempts to publicly file my client’s personal financial information with no protection ls [sic] are improper, illegal and in violation of applicable rules … We will seek all appropriate sanctions in response to your actions.” “You should probably take a step back from your statements,” Kittila warned. “The clerk’s office advised that it was represented to her that the request was being made by my firm. We will be advising Judge Noreika of this improper conduct.” “I stand by all of my statements and I hope you have an affidavit from the clerk in support of yours,” Clark replied. In an evening order, Noreika gave Hunter’s attorneys until 9 p.m. to “show cause as to why sanctions should not be considered for misrepresentations to the Court.” — while noting they had not formally filed any request to seal evidence in the matter. However, she also ordered the filing sealed until close of business Wednesday. “We filed what was already public (voted out by Congress) as something for the judge to be aware of,” Ways and Means Committee spokesperson JP Freire told The Post. “They then misrepresented themselves to get it taken down.” Shortly before 9 p.m., Bengels submitted an affidavit in which she blamed a miscommunication among the clerks for the removal of the Ways and Means filing. “I am completely confident that I never indicated that I was calling from Mr. Kittila’s firm or that I worked with him in any way,” she said. “The only mention of his name was when [the clerk] had asked me if the filings had been entered by Mr. Kittila’s firm and I answered that I believed that to be the case.” It remains unclear whether the controversy will affect Noreika’s decision about whether to accept the first son’s plea, which Republicans have derided as a “sweetheart” deal. This is a developing story; check back for more updates. https://nypost.com/2023/07/25/hunter-biden-lawyer-accused-of-deception-to-seal-damning-evidence/

It's against DOJ policy to drop the felony charge with a misdemeanor. Pleading guilty shouldn't have resulted in dropping any felony charge. https://nypost.com/2023/07/20/irs-whistleblower-unanimous-agreement-to-charge-hunter-biden-with-felonies/

The alternate electors votes weren't officially counted or recognized because they were predicated on the election lawsuits. How is that a crime?

The Left’s 2020 ‘Fake Electors’ Narrative Is Fake News By: Margot Cleveland May 15, 2023 The 2020 Georgia situation mirrors events of 60 years ago in Hawaii, revealing that everything the media have said about ‘fake electors’ is wrong. Headlines recently proclaimed that eight of Trump’s “fake” electors accepted immunity deals. Of course, in reporting the news, the corporate outlets all missed the real story — that the electors’ testimony failed to incriminate anyone, including Trump, and that the county prosecutors engaged in massive misconduct. Equally appalling, however, was the corrupt media’s continued peddling of the “fake electors” narrative. There were no “fake” electors. There were contingent Republican electors named consistent with legal precedent to preserve the still ongoing legal challenges to the validity of Georgia’s certified vote. Nor was appointing an alternative slate of electors some cockamamie plan devised by Trump lawyers. On the contrary, Trump’s election lawyers and the contingent electors followed the precise approach Democrats successfully used when the date Congress established for certifying an election came before the legal challenges John F. Kennedy had brought in Hawaii were decided. And that approach allowed Kennedy to be certified the winner of Hawaii’s three electoral votes on Jan. 6, 1961, even though the Aloha State had originally certified Richard Nixon the victor. The Hawaii scenario in 1960 mirrors in every material respect the facts on the ground in Georgia on Dec. 14, 2020 — the date both the Democrat and Republican presidential electors met and cast their 16 electoral votes for Joe Biden and Donald Trump respectively. Here’s What Happened in Hawaii Six-0 Election day in 1960 fell on Nov. 8 and pitted Kennedy, a Democrat, against Republican Richard Nixon. The outcome remained unknown for some time, with a total of 93 electoral votes from eight different states undecided in the days following the election. Hawaii was one of those states. By Dec. 9 of that year, Kennedy had accumulated enough electoral votes to win the White House, but Hawaii’s winner was still in question. While the presidency did not depend on Hawaii’s three electoral votes, Democrats there had challenged the initial returns that gave Nixon a 141-vote edge, or 0.08 percent margin of victory. Based on the original count in favor of Nixon, the acting governor of Hawaii, Republican James Kealoha, certified the Republican electors on Nov. 28, 1960. On Dec. 13, over the objections of the state attorney general, state circuit court Judge Ronald Jamieson ordered a recount. Then, on Dec. 19, both the Nixon and Kennedy electors met, “cast their votes for President and Vice President, and certified their own meeting and votes.” In casting their electoral ballots for Kennedy, the three Hawaiian Democrats certified they were the “duly and legally qualified and appointed” electors for president and vice president for the state of Hawaii and that they had been “certified (as such) by the Executive.” The Hawaii electors further attested: “We hereby certify that the lists of all the votes of the state of Hawaii given for President, and of all the votes given for Vice President, are contained herein.” Two of the three Democrat electors were retired federal judges, William Heen and Delbert Metzger, and Heen personally mailed the Democrat electoral votes to Congress on Dec. 20. In fact, the envelope containing the certificates, further attested: “We hereby certify that the lists of all the votes of the state of Hawaii given for president … are contained herein.” Ten days later, on Dec. 30, 1960, Judge Jamieson held that Kennedy had won the election. In so holding, Jamieson stressed the importance of the Democrat electors having met on Dec. 19, as prescribed by the Electoral Count Act, to cast their ballots in favor of Kennedy. That step allowed the Hawaii governor to then certify Kennedy as the winner of Hawaii’s three electoral votes and, in turn, Congress to count Hawaii’s electoral votes in favor of Kennedy. The Peach State Repeat The Georgia situation in 2020 mirrored the events of 60 years ago in Hawaii. Election day in 2020 fell on Nov. 3, although by then many ballots had already been cast, given the adoption of mass mail-in and early voting. Trump held a lead in Georgia until the morning of Friday, Nov. 6, when Biden overtook the incumbent. With the margin remaining tight, on Nov. 11, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced a statewide audit. Following the audit, Biden remained in the lead by approximately 12,000 votes, leading Raffensperger to certify the election results on Friday, Nov. 20, 2020. Republic Gov. Brian Kemp signed the certification the same day. Then on Nov. 21, Trump requested a recount, as allowed under Georgia law given the closeness of the count. On Dec. 4, 2020, then-President Trump and Republican elector David Shafer filed suit in a Fulton County state court against Raffensperger, arguing tens of thousands of votes counted in the presidential election had been cast in violation of Georgia law. While Trump’s lawsuit was still pending, on Dec. 7, 2020, based on the recount, Raffensperger recertified Biden as the winner of Georgia’s 16 electoral votes by a margin of 11,779. Trump and Shafer’s Fulton County lawsuit contesting the election results remained pending on Dec. 14, 2020, the date the presidential electors were required by federal law to meet. Thus, while the Democrat electors met and cast their ballots for Joe Biden, the Republican electors met separately and cast their 16 votes for Trump. At that time, Shafer made clear the Trump electors had met and cast their votes to ensure Trump’s legal battle in court remained viable. Nonetheless, following Biden’s election, Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis targeted the Republican electors as part of her criminal special purpose grand jury investigation. While the grand jury has since issued a report and been disbanded, Willis agreed to grant immunity to eight of the electors, likely to push them to implicate the other electors. However, their lawyer confirmed in a court filing that none of the electors implicated anyone in criminal activity. Since then, Shafer’s attorneys, Holly Pierson and Craig Gillen, wrote Willis a detailed letter reviewing the Hawaii precedent. The attorneys noted they had made three prior written requests to meet “to discuss the factual and legal issues” relevant to Shafer’s role as a contingent Trump elector but had “not yet received any response to those requests.” The 11-page, single-spaced letter then proceeded to detail both the Hawaii precedent for Shafer’s actions following the 2020 election and the legal advice the Republican elector received that “he and the other contingent presidential electors should meet at the state capitol building on December 14, 2020, and perform the duties of a presidential elector to preserve potential remedies in the event Trump et al. v. Raffensperger, et al. was successful.” In addition to detailing the Hawaii precedent from 1960, Shafer’s lawyers highlighted the fact that in contesting the 2000 election, lawyers for then-Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore cited that very precedent to support his position that two elector slates could be appointed. In fact, Democrat Rep. Patsy Mink of Hawaii suggested the 2000 Florida electoral dispute be resolved based on that Hawaii precedent too. And three Supreme Court justices in Bush v. Gore cited the Hawaii precedent as a basis for allowing the Florida recount to proceed. As the letter and Hawaii precedent make clear, Shafer and the other Trump electors not only did nothing wrong, but they acted prudentially to ensure that if the state court lawsuit resolved in the president’s favor, Georgia’s electoral votes would be properly counted on Jan. 6, 2020. Here we see one of the only differences between Trump’s legal challenge and Kennedy’s: The Hawaii state court promptly resolved the merits of Kennedy’s legal challenge, while in violation of the Georgia Election Code that requires lawsuits contesting elections to be heard within 20 days, the Fulton County court delayed assigning a judge to hear Trump’s election dispute and then delayed the first scheduled hearing until Jan. 8, 2021 — two days after Congress certified Biden the winner of the 2020 election. Now you know the rest of the story. There were no fake electors. The question now is whether Willis will charge Shafer and others with fake crimes. https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/15/the-lefts-2020-fake-electors-narrative-is-fake-news/ In Michigan the liberal AG just charged 16 people for being 'fake' electors because they dared to dispute the outcome of the election by wanting to certify that Trump won in the state.

This was more than just a discussion. Hunter Biden agreed to represent Patrick Ho for a $1 million retainer. He was rendering a service Even the New Yorker admitted Hunter was representing Ho in a July 2019 article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign

Prosecutors of Biden Family Corruption Witness Gal Luft Donated to Joe Biden, Other Dems Chuck Ross July 12, 2023 The prosecutors leading the charge against Gal Luft, who claims to have damning information about the Biden family's ties to China, have donated to President Joe Biden and other Democrats, campaign finance records show. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan unsealed charges this week against Luft, who claims to have given the FBI information in 2019 about the Biden family's Chinese business dealings. Assistant U.S. attorneys Catherine Ghosh and Daniel Richenthal, who conducted the interview with Luft in 2019, are the two lead prosecutors on his case, court records show. Both have contributed exclusively to Democrats. Ghosh made 35 contributions in the 2020 election cycle to Biden's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, according to campaign finance records. Richenthal contributed to the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign when he served in private practice, the records show. The revelations come as IRS whistleblowers and Republicans question whether federal prosecutors, for political reasons, stymied investigations into Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings. IRS whistleblowers have alleged that Biden-appointed federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., blocked requests to file tax charges against Hunter Biden in their jurisdictions. The whistleblowers also claim that investigators were prohibited from fully investigating the Biden family's foreign business ventures, including with CEFC China Energy. The charges against Luft have already sparked allegations of a double standard in how the administration investigates the first family. "The amazing thing is we don't prosecute foreign corruption and failure to register as a foreign agent when it's Hunter Biden. We do when it's somebody who specifically is accusing and says they have information about the wrongdoing of the Biden family," Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) said this week after Luft's indictment was unsealed. Prosecutors charged Luft, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act through his work for CEFC China Energy. He is accused of recruiting former CIA director James Woolsey on behalf of CEFC China Energy to write articles touting pro-Beijing policies. According to the indictment, Luft failed to register with the Justice Department for his work for a "Chinese foreign principal." Hunter Biden has avoided similar charges, even though CEFC China Energy paid him nearly $6 million for business and legal consulting in 2017 and 2018. Joe Biden was also allegedly involved in his son's work for CEFC China Energy. Longtime Biden family friend Rob Walker told the FBI in December 2020 that Joe Biden and his son took part in a meeting with CEFC China Energy executives at the Four Seasons in Washington, D.C. That contradicts Joe Biden's claims to have no involvement in his son's business ventures. Richenthal and Ghosh have investigated CEFC China Energy since at least 2017 when they handled the prosecution of Patrick Ho, a CEFC China Energy executive with ties to both Hunter Biden and Luft. Ho was indicted in November 2017 for attempting to bribe two African officials on behalf of CEFC China Energy. CEFC China Energy paid Hunter Biden $1 million to represent Ho in the case. Richenthal asked the judge presiding over the Ho case to redact Biden’s name from emails introduced as evidence at trial, according to court transcripts. "Our view is that the name of that individual is not relevant and could introduce a political dimension to this case that we don't think is worth dealing with," Richenthal said at Ho’s trial, referring to a December 2015 email in which Hunter Biden was invited to a dinner with CEFC China Energy chairman Ye Jianming. Luft met with Richenthal, Ghosh, and four FBI agents in Brussels in March 2019, shortly after Ho was convicted at his bribery trial. Luft has said he told the prosecutors that CEFC China Energy paid Hunter Biden to use the Biden family’s connections to the FBI in order to find out whether CEFC China Energy and its chairman, Ye Jianming, were under investigation. Luft also said he told prosecutors that CEFC China Energy paid Hunter Biden to promote the Belt and Road Initiative, the Chinese government’s infrastructure investment initiative. Prosecutors charged Luft with lying during the interviews in Brussels, which occurred on March 28 and 29, 2019, regarding his attempts to broker weapons sales on behalf of CEFC China Energy. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan did not respond to a request for comment. https://freebeacon.com/democrats/prosecutors-handling-hunter-biden-corruption-witness-gal-luft-donated-to-biden-and-other-dems/

You are not accurately describing the law. You have to be representing the foreign principal yes, but the dealings with the U.S. government that you mention is not the only factor that's required in order for FARA to apply. Hunter agreed to advise a former Chinese official on matters related to US law and advice on hiring and legal analysis from any US Law Firm or Lawyer. He was not just doing business with Chinese officials, he agreed to help obtain US legal counsel in one his deals. That would absolutely be something FARA would apply for. https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/

Hunter Biden was getting 'consulting' fees as part of an agreement with the Chinese company. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/analysis-hunter-bidens-hard-drive-shows-firm-took-11-million-2013-2018-rcna29462