Hunter Plea Deal Falls Apart

[AUDub 11,149]

*long-winded reply loaded with dubious bull**** incoming*

[LPTiger 5,166]

25 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I guarantee you Biden would rather not be having to deal with a situation in which words like "immunity" are getting chucked around. 

Dub if you or I received over $10,000,000 from China, Romania and Ukraine over a 5 year period and never paid our taxes during those 5 years, would we be looking at 2 misdemeanors.    For all you Biden lovers, go read the transcript.   Mr. Biden did you receive any income from China.   Biden: I did.   The Court: Tell me about that.   Biden: I started a company and my partner was from China.   The Court:  Can you tell me his name?   Biden: I can't spell his name.    Lord, haven't we all been there i.e. in legit partnerships with one other partner whose name we can't spell? 

[AUDub 11,149]

8 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

Dub if you or I received over $10,000,000 from China, Romania and Ukraine over a 5 year period and never paid our taxes during those 5 years, would we be looking at 2 misdemeanors.    For all you Biden lovers, go read the transcript.   Mr. Biden did you receive any income from China.   Biden: I did.   The Court: Tell me about that.   Biden: I started a company and my partner was from China.   The Court:  Can you tell me his name?   Biden: I can't spell his name.    Lord, haven't we all been there i.e. in legit partnerships with one other partner whose name we can't spell? 

Weird hypothetical. It depends. Am I presumed to be counting it as income? Am I exchanging goods or service for that largesse? 

If I was in a situation where someone was flashing me that kind of cheese the justice system changes. Money, my dear boy. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,149]

Here’s the thing; absent any sort of evidence of bribery or some other crime, and as long as I pay those back taxes and any penalties and fees, I’d likely get a slap on the wrist at worst.

What Hunter did, which amounts to influence peddling, is not inherently a federal crime. Sleazy as hell - and you’ll get no argument from me that Hunter Biden is a sleaze - but there are myriad ways to get off light. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Ken White, a former AUSA, has a take:

https://popehat.substack.com/p/hunter-biden-and-the-fog-of-war

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.

Quote

Lucian Dervan, a law professor at Belmont University, said the judge seemed concerned that the decision to handle immunity in the diversion program rather than in the plea agreement "might have removed that issue from her purview."

In most venues, judges don't typically weigh in on diversion agreements, Dervan explained -- those arrangements are typically treated as a private contract between prosecutors and defendants, depriving judges from scrutinizing them in detail.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321

[AUDub 11,149]

4 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

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

Here’s where he talked about that in detail. 
 

“So when the diversion agreement says that the government won’t prosecute crimes “encompassed by” that statement of facts, does that mean any crimes of which those activities are a part? It’s not clear. Friends and neighbors, that is s***ty drafting.  And if you’re Hunter Biden’s lawyer and telling your client that he can’t be prosecuted for crimes related to those income sources because of that language, that’s reckless advice and bad lawyering. It’s a failure by both attorneys. If Judge Noreika spotted that issue, called it out, and asked for an explanation, then good for her — she’s doing her job, which is to make sure the defendant understands the deal they are accepting.”

 

[AUDub 11,149]

If I’m a defendant in a case where my representation fails me, I’d thank the Lord if a judge picked up on something like that. It’s incoherent. 

[AUDub 11,149]

17 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

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

Judge Noreika didn't have concerns about the substance of the deal but whether the way the deal was structured was within the power of the court. That’s different from what Dervan is saying. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

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.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, AU9377 said:

What I haven't seen is any connection whatsoever between the money being spent by these companies in hopes that it will gain them some favor and an elected official actually doing some act or influencing policy as a result of them doing so. 

Would sworn testimony to the contrary - by someone with personal knowledge - change your position in any way?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Here’s where he talked about that in detail. 
 

“So when the diversion agreement says that the government won’t prosecute crimes “encompassed by” that statement of facts, does that mean any crimes of which those activities are a part? It’s not clear. Friends and neighbors, that is s***ty drafting.  And if you’re Hunter Biden’s lawyer and telling your client that he can’t be prosecuted for crimes related to those income sources because of that language, that’s reckless advice and bad lawyering. It’s a failure by both attorneys. If Judge Noreika spotted that issue, called it out, and asked for an explanation, then good for her — she’s doing her job, which is to make sure the defendant understands the deal they are accepting.”

 

You write this off as merely “bad lawyering.” I take it you are utterly unfamiliar with Latham Watkins?

[AUDub 11,149]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You write this off as merely “bad lawyering.” I take it you are utterly unfamiliar with Latham Watkins?

Take that up with Ken White, who I was quoting. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Take that up with Ken White, who I was quoting. 

Lol. Oops. Were you quoting him here too: “If I’m a defendant in a case where my representation fails me, I’d thank the Lord if a judge picked up on something like that. It’s incoherent.“

[AUDub 11,149]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

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.

One quibble among many. 

 

"Assuming for the moment that it’s real (and it’s too elaborate and detailed for me to think it’s a hoax), it shows a combination of what I said above and other factors: the judge was put off by factors including the odd division of the matter into two separate agreements, the unclear relationship between the plea and diversion agreements, the unclear nature of what happens if she rejects one and accepts the other, the ambiguity of what happens to the plea agreement if the diversion agreement is breached, the ambiguity of what happens if the “addict in possession” law underlying the diversion agreement turns out to be unconstitutional, the fact that Biden’s attorneys and the government’s attorneys did not seem to have a meeting of the minds - at least beyond the hearing — what crimes are covered by the non-prosecution promise, whether the government stuck the non-prosecution promise in a separate agreement to prevent her from rejecting it (which she might have been able to do if it was in the plea agreement for complex statutory reasons), 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..."

[AUDub 11,149]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Lol. Oops. Were you quoting him here too: “

If I’m a defendant in a case where my representation fails me, I’d thank the Lord if a judge picked up on something like that. It’s incoherent.“

No that was me. 

She caught a situation where the prosecution and defense weren't on the same page regarding what the defendant was agreeing to. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by AUDub

[AU9377 4,935]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Would sworn testimony to the contrary - by someone with personal knowledge - change your position in any way?

Certainly, provided that they were capable of giving specific examples of involvement and the quid pro quo that was involved.  Hunter calling his dad during a business meeting isn't going to cut it.  Hunter relaying something his dad may or may not have said isn't enough either. 

Hunter telling someone that he can get them a meeting with his dad at the White House isn't enough unless there is evidence that Joe knew Hunter was being compensated in some way in exchange for that meeting.  Joe meeting with someone and being cordial without that meeting impacting policy etc is not unlawful. 

It all boils down to this... Hunter can tell people almost anything.  To make this some grand conspiracy or abuse of office, there has to be evidence that Joe himself participated.

[aubaseball 2,619]

With “Sleepy ‘s” brother, daughter in law and “the big guy” getting his share, for anyone to think that Joe didn’t have knowledge of his business dealings and giving his input and influence, that’s a case of denial.   And secondly, if not for this bonehead being a crackhead and leaving his computer at a shop, none of this would have ever come to light.   There isn’t going to be a smoking gun laying around with a pretty bow on top to tie it all together for the left though.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Certainly, provided that they were capable of giving specific examples of involvement and the quid pro quo that was involved.  Hunter calling his dad during a business meeting isn't going to cut it.  Hunter relaying something his dad may or may not have said isn't enough either. 

Hunter telling someone that he can get them a meeting with his dad at the White House isn't enough unless there is evidence that Joe knew Hunter was being compensated in some way in exchange for that meeting.  Joe meeting with someone and being cordial without that meeting impacting policy etc is not unlawful. 

It all boils down to this... Hunter can tell people almost anything.  To make this some grand conspiracy or abuse of office, there has to be evidence that Joe himself participated.

Amazing. 

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

Bottom line it for us, lawyers.  Publicly, for weeks, we have been told there was a plea deal for Hunter’s tax evasion and gun crimes.  That all Hunter had to do was to show up and the judge would sign off on the deal.  The Hunter lawyers said this would put the laptop and all accusations to bed, nothing to see here, and the prosecution appeared to agree with those statements as there were no pushback publicly.  

How did this *deal* get this far into the process when both sides were this far off?  What changed?  Did they hope the judge would just blindly agree?  And if she did, was the DOJ going object at any point or just lay down?  This is odd from an observers stand point.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Bottom line it for us, lawyers.  Publicly, for weeks, we have been told there was a plea deal for Hunter’s tax evasion and gun crimes.  That all Hunter had to do was to show up and the judge would sign off on the deal.  The Hunter lawyers said this would put the laptop and all accusations to bed, nothing to see here, and the prosecution appeared to agree with those statements as there were no pushback publicly.  

How did this *deal* get this far into the process when both sides were this far off?  What changed?  Did they hope the judge would just blindly agree?  And if she did, was the DOJ going object at any point or just lay down?  This is odd from an observers stand point.

Bottom line: There are two tiers of justice in this country and, fortunately, some judges won’t condone it.

[AU9377 4,935]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Bottom line it for us, lawyers.  Publicly, for weeks, we have been told there was a plea deal for Hunter’s tax evasion and gun crimes.  That all Hunter had to do was to show up and the judge would sign off on the deal.  The Hunter lawyers said this would put the laptop and all accusations to bed, nothing to see here, and the prosecution appeared to agree with those statements as there were no pushback publicly.  

How did this *deal* get this far into the process when both sides were this far off?  What changed?  Did they hope the judge would just blindly agree?  And if she did, was the DOJ going object at any point or just lay down?  This is odd from an observers stand point.

If this had not been a high profile case, that is most likely exactly what would have happened.  I was actually impressed with the judge's attention to detail.  She did involve herself in the details more than usual, but that insulates her from accusations of being a rubber stamp and it also gives more clarity and protection to a defendant.

They really aren't that far off.  The defense team assumed that the plea was more inclusive than what he prosecutor intended.  That is pretty common.

She gave them 30 days to brief her on the gun charge.  She will likely accept the plea once they get that hammered down.  I doubt she has ever encountered that gun charge, especially when not made in connection to a gun crime.  That charge is seldom, if ever, charged unless the gun was actually used in the commission of a crime.

[AU9377 4,935]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Bottom line: There are two tiers of justice in this country and, fortunately, some judges won’t condone it.

That was your take?  She would have accepted the deal if the gun charge had not been included and the plea on the tax charges had been inclusive of other possible charges relating to the compensation involved.   She went so far as to question the constitutionality of the gun charge and the mechanism of enforcement. 

 

[AUDub 11,149]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Bottom line: There are two tiers of justice in this country and, fortunately, some judges won’t condone it.

Well yeah. That's what I meant here:

15 hours ago, AUDub said:

If I was in a situation where someone was flashing me that kind of cheese the justice system changes. Money, my dear boy. 

But the fact of the matter is that this case is unique, and part of why is that Hunter Biden's higher profile actually hurts him here. 

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

23 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

gives more clarity and protection to a defendant.

It appears in this case it took away the protection of never being charged with another crime.  That seem like it would have been the ultimate protection.

 

25 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

They really aren't that far off.  The defense team assumed that the plea was more inclusive than what he prosecutor intended.  That is pretty common.

Why were they off at all?  There was a clear understanding when they agreed to a deal, what changed?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It appears in this case it took away the protection of never being charged with another crime.  That seem like it would have been the ultimate protection.

 

Why were they off at all?  There was a clear understanding when they agreed to a deal, what changed?

 

Here is the transcript. Don’t let anyone repackage what actually went down. 
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23888608/transcript-of-july-26-2023-hearing.pdf