Hunter’s plea deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Hunter was the “smartest person I know”, according to Joe Biden.

Maybe he is. Hunter made tens of millions of dollars for apparently doing nothing. How many can do that? He broke all kinds of laws but will not get 1 day of jail time and complete immunity for everything else. How many can say that? he must be laughing all the way to the bank.

He performed duties that corporate lawyers and investment consultants perform and was well-paid as corporate lawyers and investment consultants are. He was prepared to plead guilty to the two crimes he committed but your guys blew that up chasing fantasy charges.

Sure.
He committed a plethora of other crimes, but he was either not charged, or the statute of limitations ran out.
I'm sure his "duties" as a corporate lawyer and investment consultant was just as above board as his art deals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Hunter was the “smartest person I know”, according to Joe Biden.

Maybe he is. Hunter made tens of millions of dollars for apparently doing nothing. How many can do that? He broke all kinds of laws but will not get 1 day of jail time and complete immunity for everything else. How many can say that? he must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Yes, this is what Joe views as honorable and smart.
Shows his total lack of ethics and integrity.

When Hunter was shacking up/sleeping with Beau’s widow and Joe and Jill publicly supported them- that was a huge red flag. Not good.

Is this actually true? If so, disgusting.

It is actually true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't the HB's attorneys speak up during the hearing if they had a verbal agreement as to the immunity covering the FARA charge and other related potential bribery or influence peddling related charges? They had a duty to speak up and protect their client by speaking up. Failure to speak up and protect HB would be a serious violation of the Rules of the Professional Conduct for the DC, MD and VA or wherever those attorneys are licenses.

Fraud on the court may be a problem but this violation is also a problem.

Protecting their client means playing ball with DOJ, who wanted to save face and make it look like they weren't colluding.

That’s the problem - there was collusion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parties gave the judge a 'revised plea agreement and Diversion agreement' at the last minute minutes before the hearing began. This revised version had the new 'immunity clause' that gave broad immunity to Hunter Biden.

Judge would not think twice about being given revised versions of documents at the last minute but the day before, judge found out that Hunter's defense counsel called the Court clerk's office and pretended to be someone calling from the republican Ways and Means Comm and asking the Amicus brief that was filed w/ IRS whistleblowers' testimony be taken down. Judge only found out because the Ways and Means Comm attorney found out and alerted the clerk's office the material should not have been taken down and should be put back up.

Now tell me how often an amicus brief from a House committee is filed in a misdemeanor tax case...

Now, tell me how many people are charged with "misdemeanor" tax evasion for not reporting millions of dollars for multiple years.

+1 this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, elsewhere, the noose is tightening around Trump’s neck with new indictments coming from multiple fronts. But, apparently, the alleged crimes of Hunter Biden, a private citizen, are more newsworthy in the alternate news universe of Republicans than those of a former president of the United States.

How does that relate to Hunter's plea deal?

Because the entire hunter story is the GOPs attempt to distract from the fact that their candidate is a criminal.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Hunter was the “smartest person I know”, according to Joe Biden.

Maybe he is. Hunter made tens of millions of dollars for apparently doing nothing. How many can do that? He broke all kinds of laws but will not get 1 day of jail time and complete immunity for everything else. How many can say that? he must be laughing all the way to the bank.

These endless crimes with zero prison.
At least lift his freggin law license!
Enough already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:np jumping in here...i like joe and i voted for him in 2020 and (most likely) will do again in 2024 but... man, WTF is wrong is hunter. it shows dems are no better than GOP...

Are you responsible for you children/siblings/uncle actions? Everyone has a troubled family member. Joe Biden's only sin is being a loving father. He's put in a lose-lose situation. If he supports his son GOP scream corruption, if Biden admonishes his son, then he's a cruel, deadbeat dad.

The entire HB crap is because MAGA has no agenda except cutting taxes for the rich, rolling back the few regulations that we have left, and of course making birth control illegal. They thought they could campaign on RECESSION & INFLATION but Biden gave us a soft landing and the economy will only get better. They also thought they could campaign on OPEN BORDERS but have you noticed how quiet border talk is because that WAVE of illegals never materialized?

Hunter is a drug addict who's done some slimy things but that has nothing to do with Joe Biden and his stellar presidency. Ignore the haters.

You were doing fine until you used the word "illegals" to describe human beings. That word is nearly as offensive as the n-word.
Never use it again, please.

The people you are referring to are "undocumented immigrants."

[Anonymous]

It’s too bad HB didn’t have any sort of advanced legal training that might have touched on taxation. Or at least been around people who were familiar with how the federal government works & how it gets lots of its money through taxation. The

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parties gave the judge a 'revised plea agreement and Diversion agreement' at the last minute minutes before the hearing began. This revised version had the new 'immunity clause' that gave broad immunity to Hunter Biden.

Judge would not think twice about being given revised versions of documents at the last minute but the day before, judge found out that Hunter's defense counsel called the Court clerk's office and pretended to be someone calling from the republican Ways and Means Comm and asking the Amicus brief that was filed w/ IRS whistleblowers' testimony be taken down. Judge only found out because the Ways and Means Comm attorney found out and alerted the clerk's office the material should not have been taken down and should be put back up.

Now tell me how often an amicus brief from a House committee is filed in a misdemeanor tax case...

Now tell me how often is the sitting President's son criminally investigated for over years and have pending federal criminal charges, not to mention potentially even more serious charges, reduced to misdemeanors or dropped?

Probably quite often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parties gave the judge a 'revised plea agreement and Diversion agreement' at the last minute minutes before the hearing began. This revised version had the new 'immunity clause' that gave broad immunity to Hunter Biden.

Judge would not think twice about being given revised versions of documents at the last minute but the day before, judge found out that Hunter's defense counsel called the Court clerk's office and pretended to be someone calling from the republican Ways and Means Comm and asking the Amicus brief that was filed w/ IRS whistleblowers' testimony be taken down. Judge only found out because the Ways and Means Comm attorney found out and alerted the clerk's office the material should not have been taken down and should be put back up.

Now tell me how often an amicus brief from a House committee is filed in a misdemeanor tax case...

Now tell me how often is the sitting President's son criminally investigated for over years and have pending federal criminal charges, not to mention potentially even more serious charges, reduced to misdemeanors or dropped?

Probably quite often.

So if the sitting president’s is investigating before the president takes office by the opposition political party for years. He must be convicted? OK, comrade.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, Hunters attorney's have been banned from contacting the clerk... what a sleezy group.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4125099-judge-in-hunter-biden-case-bans-attorneys-from-calling-clerk-after-bizarre-accusations/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, Hunters attorney's have been banned from contacting the clerk... what a sleezy group.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4125099-judge-in-hunter-biden-case-bans-attorneys-from-calling-clerk-after-bizarre-accusations/

At least they do not need to get a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that the court transcript is out, its clear that this was a fraud upon the court by Biden's attorneys. Thank god this judge saw through it.

As I read it, Paragraph 15 is referring to diversion on the gun charge and is constrained to just the listed charges, and is NOT some kind of supposed immunity from all other crimes and future crimes known or unknown forever in perpetuity as has been bizarrely claimed.

Yes, it was immunity for the facts listed in the plea agreement. However, they included the immunity in the diversion agreement and not the plea agreement, and tried to sell the judge on 'judges don't usually care about the diversion agreement, and probation has agreed to that.'

The judge went through the details and the lawyers for both sides put on a show of being in disagreement to let DOJ save face.

So we're basically making a big deal about a paragraph that was put in the wrong place.

You can't be serious. The paragraph - a broad grant of immunity in exchange for plea on two misdemeanor tax charges - was in the diversion agreement because the judge has no oversight over the diversion agreement. Both the defense and prosecution thought that this would work. It wasn't a mere paragraph put in the wrong place - it was an attempt to escape basic judicial review. Worse yet, and clearly the defense is worried about a new DOJ prosecuting Hunter, the diversion agreement stated that Hunter could not be held in violation of probation unless the judge approved based on evidence presented. So the defense and prosecution structured an arrangement where the judge couldn't rule on key matters in a most unusual diversion agreement, yet pulled her back in to adjudicate the agreement she was not to see to determine violations of probation. The upshot is what happened. The judge asked - as she had to - about the scope of immunity - and of course the US Attorney couldn't concede publicly that there was broad immunity - after all - the DOJ is telling Congress that the matter is still under investigation so they can slow roll document production - so the US Attorney said "no ma'm, no broad immunity". At that point the defense exploded, expecting this matter to be forever settled. I get not liking Trump - I don't - but does it cause people like you to abandon common sense?

Apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that the court transcript is out, its clear that this was a fraud upon the court by Biden's attorneys. Thank god this judge saw through it.

As I read it, Paragraph 15 is referring to diversion on the gun charge and is constrained to just the listed charges, and is NOT some kind of supposed immunity from all other crimes and future crimes known or unknown forever in perpetuity as has been bizarrely claimed.

Yes, it was immunity for the facts listed in the plea agreement. However, they included the immunity in the diversion agreement and not the plea agreement, and tried to sell the judge on 'judges don't usually care about the diversion agreement, and probation has agreed to that.'

The judge went through the details and the lawyers for both sides put on a show of being in disagreement to let DOJ save face.

So we're basically making a big deal about a paragraph that was put in the wrong place.

1) Immunity is dealt with in the plea agreement not the diversion program agreement.

2) You rarely if ever see 'Diversion program in lieu of criminal charge' in federal criminal cases in the first place and in particular for a gun related charges.

3) Pleas agreement has to be approved by the judge but not the Diversion program and both sides agreed to put the "ambiguous and broad immunity paragraph in the Diversion agreement in effect bypassing the judge as if trying to sneak one by the Court.

4) It is unheard of to structure such a plea agreement along w/ Diversion agreement and sneaking in an immunity clause in the Diversion agreement instead of the plea agreement where it should have been in the first place.

You would expect such shady practices by the defense counsel but not from DoJ. DoJ really tarnished their reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that the court transcript is out, its clear that this was a fraud upon the court by Biden's attorneys. Thank god this judge saw through it.

As I read it, Paragraph 15 is referring to diversion on the gun charge and is constrained to just the listed charges, and is NOT some kind of supposed immunity from all other crimes and future crimes known or unknown forever in perpetuity as has been bizarrely claimed.

Yes, it was immunity for the facts listed in the plea agreement. However, they included the immunity in the diversion agreement and not the plea agreement, and tried to sell the judge on 'judges don't usually care about the diversion agreement, and probation has agreed to that.'

The judge went through the details and the lawyers for both sides put on a show of being in disagreement to let DOJ save face.

So we're basically making a big deal about a paragraph that was put in the wrong place.

1) Immunity is dealt with in the plea agreement not the diversion program agreement.

2) You rarely if ever see 'Diversion program in lieu of criminal charge' in federal criminal cases in the first place and in particular for a gun related charges.

3) Pleas agreement has to be approved by the judge but not the Diversion program and both sides agreed to put the "ambiguous and broad immunity paragraph in the Diversion agreement in effect bypassing the judge as if trying to sneak one by the Court.

4) It is unheard of to structure such a plea agreement along w/ Diversion agreement and sneaking in an immunity clause in the Diversion agreement instead of the plea agreement where it should have been in the first place.

You would expect such shady practices by the defense counsel but not from DoJ. DoJ really tarnished their reputation.

You're aware that poster is leaving out a lot? Or are you just nodding along without thinking about it?