Hunter Plea Deal Falls Apart

[Son of A Tiger 561]

Hunter Biden's plea deal fell apart at the last minute thank goodness. Now some serious stuff begins. It should be interesting.

Hunter Biden's plea deal just collapsed in court (msn.com)

 

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

I ran across this:

 

This has to be a complete lie because I was reliably informed by a lawyer that Hunter could not be charged under the FARA act.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

51 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I ran across this:

 

This has to be a complete lie because I was reliably informed by a lawyer that Hunter could not be charged under the FARA act.

I wonder why not?

Foreign Agents Registration Act | Foreign Agents Registration Act (justice.gov)

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

3 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

I wonder why not?

Foreign Agents Registration Act | Foreign Agents Registration Act (justice.gov)

Because of the person’s bias. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[AU9377 4,935]

48 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I ran across this:

 

This has to be a complete lie because I was reliably informed by a lawyer that Hunter could not be charged under the FARA act.

He still hasn't been charged under FARA.  They can charge him with assaulting a man named Peanut Butter, but they have to have evidence that satisfies the elements of the crime.  That said, in this case, if they have more evidence that he acted as an agent, they can charge under FARA.  We just haven't see any of that yet.  From what I read a minute ago, the judge today was concerned that the plea should be all inclusive.  I'm certain that the defense attorneys assumed that it was all inclusive before they walked into court today.  A defense team is going to take the deal and later claim that it was all inclusive regardless of whether or not anything stating it is actually exists.  I don't think that the assumption is a reach when I assume 5 years is enough time to decide whether there is evidence of agency clear enough to withstand a charge.

They could very likely go back and add a FARA charge with probation and a fine to make the deal more inclusive.  That charge really doesn't change much.  People don't usually get jail time for a FARA violation. That is especially true when there is the slightest question as to whether the act applies to their activities or not.  This is sloppy preparation by all involved, especially the Delaware DOJ office.

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

He still hasn't been charged under FARA.  They can charge him with assaulting a man named Peanut Butter, but they have to have evidence that satisfies the elements of the crime.  That said, in this case, if they have more evidence that he acted as an agent, they can charge under FARA.  We just haven't see any of that yet.  From what I read a minute ago, the judge today was concerned that the plea should be all inclusive.  I'm certain that the defense attorneys assumed that it was all inclusive before they walked into court today.  A defense team is going to take the deal and later claim that it was all inclusive regardless of whether or not anything stating it is actually exists.  I don't think that the assumption is a reach when I assume 5 years is enough time to decide whether there is evidence of agency clear enough to withstand a charge.

They could very likely go back and add a FARA charge with probation and a fine to make the deal more inclusive.  That charge really doesn't change much.  People don't usually get jail time for a FARA violation. That is especially true when there is the slightest question as to whether the act applies to their activities or not.  This is sloppy preparation by all involved, especially the Delaware DOJ office.

Why would the defense team call up the judge, pose as the prosecution team and ask to remove some evidence that could potentially be damaging to Hunter.  I’m sure there is a reasonable explanation.  Then today the plea deal is shaky. Is there a connection?  Why didn’t the Delaware DOJ include the FARA information in the plea deal?  Could it be the investigators were not able to dig deep enough to see if FARA is involved?  Did the Delaware DOJ not have the authority to go deeper even thought Garland said they did?  Is the deal in jeopardy because of what the whistleblowers testified to in front of Congress?

So many questions and they are all on one side.  This is strange to say the least.

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

Hmmmm…

 

The (show more) The prosecutor said NO, then one of Hunter's attorneys jumped up and said "then there's no deal!" Reporters present in the courtroom have said the judge seemed highly skeptical of the "unusual deal" from the get-go, as it offered Hunter Biden BROAD immunity from prosecution in perpetuity. The judge questioned why it was filed under a provision that gave her no legal authority to reject it. She then asked Leo Wise, the top prosecutor, if there was any precedent for that kind of deal being proposed. He replied, "No, your honor." WAS THE BIDEN DOJ TRYING TO PUSH AN "UNDER THE TABLE" DEAL

My questions; did Wise have complete authority to bring all charges AND set up a *Special Council*?  It appears NOT.

[AU9377 4,935]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why would the defense team call up the judge, pose as the prosecution team and ask to remove some evidence that could potentially be damaging to Hunter.  I’m sure there is a reasonable explanation.  Then today the plea deal is shaky. Is there a connection?  Why didn’t the Delaware DOJ include the FARA information in the plea deal?  Could it be the investigators were not able to dig deep enough to see if FARA is involved?  Did the Delaware DOJ not have the authority to go deeper even thought Garland said they did?  Is the deal in jeopardy because of what the whistleblowers testified to in front of Congress?

So many questions and they are all on one side.  This is strange to say the least.

The judge was actually doing a pretty good job of trying to make certain that Hunter's rights were protected.  She questioned whether the gun charge should have even been charged due to what she believes are possible constitutionality problems with the law itself. 

The House Ways and Means committee wanted to file an Amicus brief yesterday and that was on the docket sheet.  Removing that is not removing evidence.  The House Amicus brief included personal tax information.  This explains it, but you won't hear the actual response listening to the sources you trust.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/25/hunter-biden-judge-plea-deal-phone-call-00108184

[AU9377 4,935]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Hmmmm…

 

The (show more) The prosecutor said NO, then one of Hunter's attorneys jumped up and said "then there's no deal!" Reporters present in the courtroom have said the judge seemed highly skeptical of the "unusual deal" from the get-go, as it offered Hunter Biden BROAD immunity from prosecution in perpetuity. The judge questioned why it was filed under a provision that gave her no legal authority to reject it. She then asked Leo Wise, the top prosecutor, if there was any precedent for that kind of deal being proposed. He replied, "No, your honor." WAS THE BIDEN DOJ TRYING TO PUSH AN "UNDER THE TABLE" DEAL

My questions; did Wise have complete authority to bring all charges AND set up a *Special Council*?  It appears NOT.

LMAO - looking for that conspiracy above all else.

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

11 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The judge was actually doing a pretty good job of trying to make certain that Hunter's rights were protected.  She questioned whether the gun charge should have even been charged due to what she believes are possible constitutionality problems with the law itself. 

The House Ways and Means committee wanted to file an Amicus brief yesterday and that was on the docket sheet.  Removing that is not removing evidence.  The House Amicus brief included personal tax information.  This explains it, but you won't hear the actual response listening to the sources you trust.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/25/hunter-biden-judge-plea-deal-phone-call-00108184

So it was a misunderstanding and the clerk removed the amicus brief?  Sounds interesting and truly believable.  Every time I hear Joe Biden speak I take it with a grain of salt, why would I believe a lawyer that is up Hunter and Joe’s rear end without taking it with a grain of salt?

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

12 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

LMAO - looking for that conspiracy above all else.

So you have no real rebuttal. What a shock. Joe’s DOJ tried an end around and a Democrat judge isn’t buying it.  Have I got the facts correct?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

58 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Hmmmm…

 

The (show more) The prosecutor said NO, then one of Hunter's attorneys jumped up and said "then there's no deal!" Reporters present in the courtroom have said the judge seemed highly skeptical of the "unusual deal" from the get-go, as it offered Hunter Biden BROAD immunity from prosecution in perpetuity. The judge questioned why it was filed under a provision that gave her no legal authority to reject it. She then asked Leo Wise, the top prosecutor, if there was any precedent for that kind of deal being proposed. He replied, "No, your honor." WAS THE BIDEN DOJ TRYING TO PUSH AN "UNDER THE TABLE" DEAL

My questions; did Wise have complete authority to bring all charges AND set up a *Special Council*?  It appears NOT.

[AU9377 4,935]

58 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So it was a misunderstanding and the clerk removed the amicus brief?  Sounds interesting and truly believable.  Every time I hear Joe Biden speak I take it with a grain of salt, why would I believe a lawyer that is up Hunter and Joe’s rear end without taking it with a grain of salt?

The judge removed the brief, at least temporarily, due to the contents being filled with things only meant to disparage the defendant or cast him in a negative light.  The misunderstanding was between the associate that called the clerk and the clerk.  I wasn't on the line, so I don't know what was said, but the judge didn't mention it today, so she must have been done with the topic. Keep in mind, that brief is submitted by a 3rd party with no relevant legal opiniion on the issue.

I'm not defending Hunter.  He opened the door to this by not paying his taxes on money that he was basically getting for little to no work in the first place.  Even so, the degree to which House Republicans distort and push nonsense knows no end.

Edited July 26, 2023 by AU9377

[AU9377 4,935]

54 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So you have no real rebuttal. What a shock. Joe’s DOJ tried an end around and a Democrat judge isn’t buying it.  Have I got the facts correct?

WTF are you talking about?  The judge is a Trump appointee.... even though that really shouldn't matter.  She didn't accuse anyone of any sort of end around.  She suggested that HB's rights would be best protected if the plea was more inclusive.  She also didn't want to be inserted as some sort of arbitrator if he violated the terms of the plea on the gun charge (no idea what the agreement was there).

She is likely being more assertive due to this being such a high profile case.  She doesn't want to look bad if something isn't handled the right way by the court.  This kind of thing happens more than people realize.  It was only surprising that it happened today due to the high profile nature of the case and everyone assuming that things would have been set to run smoothly.

When you have a plea deal, it works like a contract.  Both parties have to agree to what they agree to or there is no agreement.

[alexava 6,973]

It almost sounds like the judge and prosecutors are trying to protect this poor man. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,109]

Conservatives are funny. Half of them are angry at the judge for "protecting" Biden here, while the other half are congratulating this judge for blocking an agreement that they feel was too favorable to Hunter. 

 

The reality is that this judge was just properly doing her job by making sure both parties were aware of and in full agreement to the plea deal that was in front of them. She also apparently had concerns about the gun provision that she believes isn't properly written out and is possibly unconstitutional as it says she's the one that would charge Biden with the gun charge if he violates the proposed probation conditions, which she says she doesn't have the authority to do. 

 

I'd expect an amended plea deal to be put forth and accepted by all parties in a few months maybe.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

Hunter was on the Board of Burisma and  lobbbied/influenced U.S. people and potential customers. So why can't he be charged under FARA?

[Son of A Tiger 561]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Conservatives are funny. 

Not half as funny as libs and their master Joe the Clown.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[AU9377 4,935]

1 hour ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Hunter was on the Board of Burisma and  lobbbied/influenced U.S. people and potential customers. So why can't he be charged under FARA?

Who did he lobby and influence?  I thought he just got paid to do nothing.  Has that changed now?

[CoffeeTiger 5,109]

2 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Not half as funny as libs and their master Joe the Clown.

Joe the Clown? Interesting nickname coming from a guy who’s voted for a reality tv star that paints his face orange like an Oompa Loompa. 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Who did he lobby and influence?  I thought he just got paid to do nothing.  Has that changed now?

This board would have you never make an inference or read between a single line with Joe and Hunter, and jump to massive conclusions with Trump. Your scales are imbalanced. 

He didn't get paid millions of dollars by multiple countries to do nothing. That's hilarious, though.

Edited July 27, 2023 by KansasTiger

[AURex 2,000]

Coming from the left, if Hunter broke laws, convict him and fine him and incarcerate him as per the applicable laws. Unlike the right wingers, as a liberal I am 100% supportive of the application of the law to EVERYONE.

As for all the right wing crazoids -- most of this is just an attempt to distract the public from ..... um ..... you know who .... who is being indicted and convicted and indicted again and will be more and more indicted.

But the reality is, all of the Hunter stuff will not distract the public from Criminal #1.

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by AURex

[alexava 6,973]

The judge did the right thing by not being a rubber stamp.  My concern is that she apologized to Hunter. Why apologize? 

[Tigermike 3,031]

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

@AU9377you are intelligent enough to look at Hunter-Burisma for what it is. Come on now . . .