Hunter Plea Deal Falls Apart

[AU9377 4,935]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

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

 

A plea deal is like a contract.  In order to have a binding contract, there has to be what is referred to as a meeting of the minds.  In other words, a clear agreement.

This is speculation on my part, but the Prosecutor's office puts the agreement in writing.  If that writing is vague in any way, defense counsel isn't likely to object. They won't object because that vagueness is likely to be construed in the defendant's favor in the future.

It is the judge's job to make certain that everyone is on the same page and that there is no ambiguity.  In most cases, the judge just goes thru the motions.  In this situation, she leaned in some and did what she is supposed to do.  The prosecutor's office should have drafted a more air tight agreement, but they aren't accustomed to being questioned and likely assumed that she would just approve whatever they suggested.

[AU9377 4,935]

13 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.

It was sloppy drafting.  Also, that gun charge is never made as an independent charge.  She has likely never seen that charge when it was not a lesser included with a criminal charge involving the gun.

[LPTiger 5,166]

Because DOJ must adhere to equal protection under the law, nearly all plea agreements with DOJ are forms where the names, and facts are changed but all else remains the standard language.   Note the judge saying she and her clerks looked through all the diversion agreements they had access to and this one was unlike any of the others.   She then asks Wise if he had ever seen a diversion agreement that contained immunity, not for just the charge involved in the agreement but other unrelated charges, and his answer was "no."   This begs the question, why did Biden's DOJ present the judge in Biden's son's case, a unique, never seen before, get out of jail free card?   Particularly where the government's case against Biden was not defendable.     

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 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.

"I hope you can all do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years. It’s really hard. But don’t worry. Unlike Pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary."

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

It is the judge's job to make certain that everyone is on the same page and that there is no ambiguity.  In most cases, the judge just goes thru the motions.  In this situation, she leaned in some and did what she is supposed to do.  The prosecutor's office should have drafted a more air tight agreement, but they aren't accustomed to being questioned and likely assumed that she would just approve whatever they suggested.

This is the whole point.  What if the judge didn’t lean in?  Would this slap on the wrist be done and not more investigation?

I think the DOJ should be totally embarrassed to get shown up this way at the last moment.  This really opens the door for more charges.

[AU9377 4,935]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is the whole point.  What if the judge didn’t lean in?  Would this slap on the wrist be done and not more investigation?

I think the DOJ should be totally embarrassed to get shown up this way at the last moment.  This really opens the door for more charges.

Nothing that the judge said or did was to suggest that she thought there should be additional charges.  She asked a series of questions to make certain that both parties had the same understanding of what the agreement included.

There is nothing illegal about doing business with people in other countries.  If they want to argue that he was lobbying in some way and was an agent of a foreign entity, they could charge FARA.  The reason they haven't charged it now is the difficulty in proving that it applies in this situation. If they did charge FARA, they would simply add a fine to the plea agreement and have that settled.

I'm not sure what you want him charged with.  The problem is that I don't think anyone knows.  That means that the government is on a fishing expedition with little probable cause.  That is a dangerous path.  I would be just as leery of that path if the subject was Jared Kushner and the Saudi Investment Fund.  Neither Jared Kushner or Hunter Biden are professional investment bankers.  However, their proximity to very powerful people allow them to engage in business with foreign investors.  It smells, but it isn't illegal.

[AU9377 4,935]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

"I hope you can all do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years. It’s really hard. But don’t worry. Unlike Pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary."

You ready to tell a jury that those words mean, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Joe Biden is guilty of what_________________________?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Hunter's tax evasion is egregious.  He should serve time.

If Joe is guilty,,, what are the policy decisions influenced by foreign money?  At some point,,, that connection has to be made.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

You ready to tell a jury that those words mean, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Joe Biden is guilty of what_________________________?

Of course I would not, standing in front of a jury, hang my hat on this single text message alone. But I do find it sufficient to show your suggestion - that there is zero evidence "Joe himself participated" - is flat wrong. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by NolaAuTiger

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is the whole point.  What if the judge didn’t lean in?  Would this slap on the wrist be done and not more investigation?

 

Yes. To succinctly summarize the entire charade: "The Hunter deal was always premised on the notion that nobody would see the sausage. The Justice Department would release the bare bones of an agreement, the press would infuse it with credibility, and the judge would sign off. It didn't count on two whistleblowers providing evidence of political favoritism, or on a court that questions why prosecutors are acting as a Hunter favor factory." 

[Didba 5,256]

23 hours ago, AUDub said:

If it wasn't for his profile he probably wouldn't even be in that courtroom.

Accusations like this are very rarely prosecuted. 

True but my point stands he has a silver spoon 

[aubiefifty 16,798]

On 7/26/2023 at 4:46 PM, Son of A Tiger said:

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

says the trump guy....wink. grins

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yes. To succinctly summarize the entire charade: "The Hunter deal was always premised on the notion that nobody would see the sausage. The Justice Department would release the bare bones of an agreement, the press would infuse it with credibility, and the judge would sign off. It didn't count on two whistleblowers providing evidence of political favoritism, or on a court that questions why prosecutors are acting as a Hunter favor factory." 

After reading the transcript it appears the defense and the DOJ were in lock step with the, as the judge put it, rubber stamping of the plea agreement that took away any input the judge may have after signing the agreement.

I’m glad the judge questioned the constitutionality of the agreement.  I guess we wait until after Labor Day to see what the two sides come up with.

I guess bring up the separation of powers was to have the judge disregard the amicus brief the House filed the day before?

[LPTiger 5,166]

The judge is a lifelong democrat who contributed to HillClinton and was endorsed by both democrat senators from Delaware.   Yet, like many Article III judges I had the pleasure of appearing before during my career, her politics did not dictate how she would handle herself when she put on her black robe.   She also came in prepared.   In transcript she states that she and her staff had reviewed every diversion agreement they had access to because she was troubled by the terms in Biden's diversion agreement.   This is exactly how her part of the system should work and it truly is a breath of fresh air.  As for the DOJ, the fact that it crafted a unique, never seen before agreement for a Biden, at a minimum,  gives the appearance of favoritism.   If Merrick Garland has half the integrity that this federal district judge has, he will insist of Biden tolling all SOL's and will appoint a special prosecutor that everyone can agree is above reproach.  

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 7/27/2023 at 2:29 PM, AUDub said:

If it wasn't for his profile he probably wouldn't even be in that courtroom.

Accusations like this are very rarely prosecuted. 

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.

[AU9377 4,935]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yes. To succinctly summarize the entire charade: "The Hunter deal was always premised on the notion that nobody would see the sausage. The Justice Department would release the bare bones of an agreement, the press would infuse it with credibility, and the judge would sign off. It didn't count on two whistleblowers providing evidence of political favoritism, or on a court that questions why prosecutors are acting as a Hunter favor factory." 

The judge in no way suggested that.  In fact, the only thing that she asked to be briefed on was the gun charge.  What do you think he should be charged with?  Regardless of what he was charged with, the House Republicans were dead set on making all of this a spectacle in Benghazzi like fashion.  When the U.S. Attorney appointed by the prior President is allowed to remain in his position in order to prevent the appearance of the current President interfering with the investigation and that Prosecutor repeatedly states that he was not prevented from choosing charges and venues, what more do you want?

 

[AU9377 4,935]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

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.

Even if there was a felony charge, it is very unlikely that he would have to serve time in prison.  He paid the unpaid taxes with penalties.  What some want is for him to be treated unlike other people.  I can guarantee you that Joe Smith wouldn't have that ridiculous gun charge as one of the charges.  That charge is almost exclusively used when there is a crime committed with the weapon that was purchased.

[AU9377 4,935]

3 hours ago, LPTiger said:

The judge is a lifelong democrat who contributed to HillClinton and was endorsed by both democrat senators from Delaware.   Yet, like many Article III judges I had the pleasure of appearing before during my career, her politics did not dictate how she would handle herself when she put on her black robe.   She also came in prepared.   In transcript she states that she and her staff had reviewed every diversion agreement they had access to because she was troubled by the terms in Biden's diversion agreement.   This is exactly how her part of the system should work and it truly is a breath of fresh air.  As for the DOJ, the fact that it crafted a unique, never seen before agreement for a Biden, at a minimum,  gives the appearance of favoritism.   If Merrick Garland has half the integrity that this federal district judge has, he will insist of Biden tolling all SOL's and will appoint a special prosecutor that everyone can agree is above reproach.  

The current prosecutor was appointed by Trump.  Garland isn't the type to lie about his involvement.  Therefore, he isn't going to appoint someone else to do this all over again.  That would be insane.  He doesn't have the power to force the tolling of the SOL that have expired.

The problem here is that this is a political football concerning a private citizen.  You are assuming that there aren't valid reasons that the prosecutor disagreed with the IRS agents that testified this past week.  Disagreements happen with most cases and the decision always comes down to the prosecutor's judgment.

[LPTiger 5,166]

12 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The current prosecutor was appointed by Trump.  Garland isn't the type to lie about his involvement.  Therefore, he isn't going to appoint someone else to do this all over again.  That would be insane.  He doesn't have the power to force the tolling of the SOL that have expired.

The problem here is that this is a political football concerning a private citizen.  You are assuming that there aren't valid reasons that the prosecutor disagreed with the IRS agents that testified this past week.  Disagreements happen with most cases and the decision always comes down to the prosecutor's judgment.

AU9377 are you not concerned by the one of a kind agreement?   Something the prosecutor says he had never seen before.   You only get ONWE chance to show evenhandedness.   After that, Garland MUST appoint a special prosecutor. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

 

 

 

[AU9377 4,935]

1 hour ago, LPTiger said:

AU9377 are you not concerned by the one of a kind agreement?   Something the prosecutor says he had never seen before.   You only get ONWE chance to show evenhandedness.   After that, Garland MUST appoint a special prosecutor. 

I'm more surprised that he was charged under that statute in the first place.  That charge is almost exclusively used in a criminal case involving the use of a firearm or in cases where the government can't prove an underlying case, but the defendant has admitted to being a drug user and it works like a hail Mary by the prosecutor. The way that was structured did Hunter Biden no favors. 

Speaking of that statute, the judge even asked if the statute was in fact constitutional?  A 5th Circuit judge has ruled that it isn't constitutional and if that is confirmed by an appellate judge, the charge won't be prosecuted.  That is one of the things that she wants to be briefed on within 30 days.  If she drops that charge, don't be shocked.

[AU9377 4,935]

55 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 

 

 

You can't go back and cherry pick a case to say that this case should have been handled differently.  No two cases are alike.  All the whining in the world won't change the fact that it is rare for someone to serve jail time as a first offender, provided they have cooperated and paid the past due taxes and penalties.

[DKW 86 7,425]

On 7/27/2023 at 5:29 PM, AUDub said:

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. 

And that was an answer to what question exactly?

[DKW 86 7,425]

On 7/27/2023 at 9:53 PM, AUDub said:

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..."

And that was clearly why she rejected this preposterous deal. It was unenforceable BY DESIGN. It gave immunity for everything and responsibility for nothing, and was literally unenforceable once agreed to.

It was a s*** show. and was thrown out.

[DKW 86 7,425]

13 hours ago, LPTiger said:

The judge is a lifelong democrat who contributed to HillClinton and was endorsed by both democrat senators from Delaware.   Yet, like many Article III judges I had the pleasure of appearing before during my career, her politics did not dictate how she would handle herself when she put on her black robe.   She also came in prepared.   In transcript she states that she and her staff had reviewed every diversion agreement they had access to because she was troubled by the terms in Biden's diversion agreement.   This is exactly how her part of the system should work and it truly is a breath of fresh air.  As for the DOJ, the fact that it crafted a unique, never seen before agreement for a Biden, at a minimum,  gives the appearance of favoritism.   If Merrick Garland has half the integrity that this federal district judge has, he will insist of Biden tolling all SOL's and will appoint a special prosecutor that everyone can agree is above reproach.  

The very idea that you HAVE to say all that is the problem. The party sycophants here don't want to hear one word of it. They want HB bad deeds silenced today and out of the papers for the election AND THAT IS AAALLLLLL THEY CARE ABOUT. **** Truth and Justice.

Afterall, the family members of Washington Elites just walk down the streets and money falls from the trees and blows into their open windows WITH ABSOLUTELY NO STRINGS ATTACHED EVER. Thats what the sycophants want you to believe because everyone in their party is pure as the driven snow and could not possibly be taken $17m in bribes and funny money. That just cant be... <fer>

Edited July 29, 2023 by DKW 86