The Hunter Biden Thread

I always heard federal court was a little more buttoned up, but there’s also a case that made the news in Chattanooga where the guy ended up getting a contraband phone into Silverdale and announced on Facebook that he wasn’t taking his fed plea offer the day before he went to court. I’ve seen the post. It would have made Trump blush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Vol8188
I’ll defer to him on tax law and the facts of this case and just point out again that lawyers don’t tend to tell their clients to plead not guilty when they’ve got a sweetheart deal and prosecutors wouldn’t be telling the judge that the investigation remains open with additional charges possibly forthcoming if the fix had been put in form on high. Also the fact that the judge was clearly there to put them through their paces is another indication that the institution is at least going to try to get it right.

I'll agree, something is not adding up here. Even if you accept his addiction defense at face value for the tax portion and plead it down to probation, you got him dead to right with the felony gun charge for the same reason (addiction)...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
What you saw with the completely unacceptable plea deal is what happens when the lawyers on both sides are working for the defense.
So the prosecution is working for the defense but they wouldn’t agree to shut down the investigation and grant immunity for potential lobbying charges?
 
So the prosecution is working for the defense but they wouldn’t agree to shut down the investigation and grant immunity for potential lobbying charges?

They did offer immunity to those charges, but they tried to tuck them into the diversion agreement so that it wouldn't be under the judge's purview. But they couldn't do that and keep it out of the hands of the DoJ of a possible future administration, so they had to tuck the possibility of a possible probation violation under the judge (which is very weird) and thus put the diversion agreement into her wheelhouse. And they are keeping the investigation running so that they don't have to make anything public. Keep in mind, there isn't even an indictment. I'm not even sure why the judge had Hunter enter his not guilty plea, because there aren't even charges pending at this point.
 
Last edited:
So the prosecution is working for the defense but they wouldn’t agree to shut down the investigation and grant immunity for potential lobbying charges?



Not now because the immunity in perpetuity has reared it's ugly head. We never heard anything, even the Judge was not informed until hours before the plea deal hearing.
These is no other explanition
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
The did offer immunity to those charges, but they tried to tuck them into the diversion agreement so that it wouldn't be under the judge's purview. And they are keeping the investigation running so that they don't have to make anything public. Keep in mind, there isn't even an indictment. I'm not even sure why the judge had Hunter enter his not guilty plea, because there aren't even charges pending at this point.
They didn’t agree to immunity for the lobbying charge. That’s why it fell apart initially and the defense attorney had to come back and acknowledge that they weren’t getting that.
 
They didn’t agree to immunity for the lobbying charge. That’s why it fell apart initially and the defense attorney had to come back and acknowledge that they weren’t getting that.

If the Judge did not bring it up in the hearing Hunter would have received that plea deal and FARA immunity.

The DOJ and Hunter's defense team were colluding for the blanket immuity offering and there was no way DOJ would admit to that collusion in Court.

Transparently corrupt federal plea agreement
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
So the prosecution is working for the defense but they wouldn’t agree to shut down the investigation and grant immunity for potential lobbying charges?

This article and a couple others that I have read say that the prosecution hid the non prosecution agreement in the pre-trial diversion agreement and that judges don't typically weigh in on pre-trial diversion agreements. So if I'm reading this correctly HB was getting a non-prosecution agreement.

New details emerge in Hunter Biden plea agreement
 
They didn’t agree to immunity for the lobbying charge. That’s why it fell apart initially and the defense attorney had to come back and acknowledge that they weren’t getting that.

The prosecution said they could still pursue him under FARA only after Judge Noreika called them out on it. If they had owned up to what the diversion agreement said, coupled with the statement of facts from the plea agreement, then the FARA prosecution would be off the table, the investigation would be closed, and the DoJ's records would have to be made public.
 
This article and a couple others that I have read say that the prosecution hid the non prosecution agreement in the pre-trial diversion agreement and that judges don't typically weigh in on pre-trial diversion agreements. So if I'm reading this correctly HB was getting a non-prosecution agreement.

New details emerge in Hunter Biden plea agreement
That is too federal procedure specific for me to form an opinion, but it doesn’t change the scope/language of the agreement which wasn’t clear that he was immune to lobbying charges. It doesn’t change the substance of the prosecutors answers to her questions or the unwillingness to budge on it after the Biden started backing out. Limited non-prosecution agreements aren’t uncommon in a plea. And they asked this judge to resolve any future disputes over breach of the diversion agreement, so I would think she would have to have reviewed that.

It’s ambiguous, I guess it gives him an argument that he didn’t have before but it’s not safe to rely on. Once the prosecution says they don’t agree to that it’s pretty tough to make that argument.
 
That is too federal procedure specific for me to form an opinion, but it doesn’t change the scope/language of the agreement which wasn’t clear that he was immune to lobbying charges. It doesn’t change the substance of the prosecutors answers to her questions or the unwillingness to budge on it after the Biden started backing out. Limited non-prosecution agreements aren’t uncommon in a plea. And they asked this judge to resolve any future disputes over breach of the diversion agreement, so I would think she would have to have reviewed that.

It’s ambiguous, I guess it gives him an argument that he didn’t have before but it’s not safe to rely on. Once the prosecution says they don’t agree to that it’s pretty tough to make that argument.

What else could the prosecution say other than the plea agreement didn't provide insulation from future prosecution? It didn't because the pre-trial diversion did and that is separate from the plea agreement and normally not reviewed or needs a judges approval or at least that's how I understand it.

I think Bama is correct, by putting the non-prosecution language in the pre-trial diversion agreement the DOJ could technically keep the investigation open and use that as a reason not to release any information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and bamawriter
This article and a couple others that I have read say that the prosecution hid the non prosecution agreement in the pre-trial diversion agreement and that judges don't typically weigh in on pre-trial diversion agreements. So if I'm reading this correctly HB was getting a non-prosecution agreement.

New details emerge in Hunter Biden plea agreement

@BigOrangeMojo : what are the tax rules if someone pays say.... $2 mil to the IRS to cover your taxes? I remember something like that in Breaking Bad but that was a criminal enterprise which our leftist friends says the bidens would never be part of.

By 2019, Hunter Biden had "spent almost the entire sum" of his 2018 income "on personal expenses, including large cash withdrawals, payments to or on behalf of his children, credit card balances, and car payments for his Porsche," Wise said.
Those outstanding tax obligations -- ultimately totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars -- went unpaid until 2020, when a third party paid the IRS more than $2 million to relieve Biden of his tax burdens, interest and penalties. ABC News has reported that Kevin Morris, an attorney and confidant to Biden, made those payments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
The prosecution said they could still pursue him under FARA only after Judge Noreika called them out on it. If they had owned up to what the diversion agreement said, coupled with the statement of facts from the plea agreement, then the FARA prosecution would be off the table, the investigation would be closed, and the DoJ's records would have to be made public.

I think this is a stretch.

The motive for the prosecution to agree to that but then not announce it in court is flimsy and the willingness of the defense attorney to try to protect his client with an ambiguous agreement that could easily be interpreted against them is far-fetched. If it’s not clear to everybody how much it protects him, then it doesn’t protect him. That’s just bad lawyering to rely on that.

It makes more sense that they just got sloppy based on everybody’s words and actions.
 
@BigOrangeMojo : what are the tax rules if someone pays say.... $2 mil to the IRS to cover your taxes? I remember something like that in Breaking Bad but that was a criminal enterprise which our leftist friends says the bidens would never be part of.

By 2019, Hunter Biden had "spent almost the entire sum" of his 2018 income "on personal expenses, including large cash withdrawals, payments to or on behalf of his children, credit card balances, and car payments for his Porsche," Wise said.
Those outstanding tax obligations -- ultimately totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars -- went unpaid until 2020, when a third party paid the IRS more than $2 million to relieve Biden of his tax burdens, interest and penalties. ABC News has reported that Kevin Morris, an attorney and confidant to Biden, made those payments.
newb alert
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
What else could the prosecution say other than the plea agreement didn't provide insulation from future prosecution? It didn't because the pre-trial diversion did and that is separate from the plea agreement and normally not reviewed or needs a judges approval or at least that's how I understand it.

I think Bama is correct, by putting the non-prosecution language in the pre-trial diversion agreement the DOJ could technically keep the investigation open and use that as a reason not to release any information.

I think you are incorrect about what was asked and the answer. He was asked whether the non prosecution clause protected Biden from a hypothetical lobbying charge and said no. He could have said yes if they agreed that that’s what was intended.
 
I think this is a stretch.

The motive for the prosecution to agree to that but then not announce it in court is flimsy and the willingness of the defense attorney to try to protect his client with an ambiguous agreement that could easily be interpreted against them is far-fetched. If it’s not clear to everybody how much it protects him, then it doesn’t protect him. That’s just bad lawyering to rely on that.

It makes more sense that they just got sloppy based on everybody’s words and actions.

I'll let someone much smarter than me explain it (emphasis mine):

Typically, if the government is offering a defendant to either drop charges or decline to bring new charges in return for the defendant’s guilty plea, the plea is structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A). Pleas under this subsection are subject to judicial approval. So if a judge believes the government’s decision to decline prosecution or dismiss charges in return for a plea to other charges is unjust, the judge can reject the plea agreement.

The deal reached between the DOJ and Hunter seems to have been that, in return for his pleading guilty to the two tax misdemeanor charges that were the subject of his plea, the government would agree not to prosecute Hunter for unlawful possession of a firearm, Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) violations, and other crimes related to his international business schemes in China and Ukraine with Bohai and Burisma, among others. In any normal case, this would have been structured as a Rule 11(c)(1)(A) plea, which would have made it subject to judicial approval.

In Hunter’s case, though, the parties were apparently worried that Judge Norieka might reject such a broad grant of immunity from prosecution in return for such minor guilty pleas. As a result, Hunter’s plea was structured under a different provision, Rule 11(c)(1)(B), which is usually just a plea agreement in return for a nonbinding sentencing recommendation, and which does not provide any ability of a court to intervene or reject the plea.

To insulate Hunter’s plea from judicial oversight — and the possibility of judicial rejection — Hunter’s lawyers and the Department of Justice included no mention of the agreement not to prosecute Hunter for further crimes in the plea agreement. Instead, they buried it in a separate pretrial diversion agreement, which they argued the judge was not a party to and therefore lacked the power to reject.

Publicly, this pretrial diversion agreement was described as applying just to the unlawful possession of a firearm charge. This was a wild mischaracterization of the agreement. Included in the agreement was a provision that bound the United States to not prosecute Biden “for any federal crimes encompassed by . . . the Statement of Facts” attached to the Plea Agreement.

The referred-to Statement of Facts includes: Hunter’s role with and compensation from Burisma; Hunter’s role with and compensation from Chinese private equity firm Bohai, Harvest, and Rosemont; Hunter’s holding company Owasco; Hunter’s consulting firm Rosemont Seneca; and many other aspects of Hunter’s controversial web of business relationships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88

VN Store



Back
Top