How long before the libs come after hunter's judge…
- Thread starter Marshall Jeff
- Start date
The breakdown in the plea had nothing to do with the judge. Apparently, Hunter's lawyers thought he was getting complete immunity going forward for everything he's done in the past and the prosecution team was like, "Uh, no. That's not what this says."
Let’s be honest. Both sides knew exactly what was in the plea deal. They were hoping no one would find out.
Yes.
From the NYT:
"Judge Noreika quickly zeroed in on a paragraph offering Mr. Biden broad immunity from prosecution, in perpetuity, for a range of matters scrutinized by the Justice Department. The judge questioned why prosecutors had written it in a way that gave her no legal authority to reject it.
Then, in 10 minutes of incisive questioning, she exposed serious differences between the two sides on what, exactly, that paragraph meant.
Christopher Clark, Mr. Biden’s lead lawyer, said it indemnified his client not merely for the tax and gun offenses uncovered during the inquiry, but for other possible offenses stemming from his lucrative consulting deals with companies in Ukraine, China and Romania.
Prosecutors had a far narrower definition. They saw Mr. Biden’s immunity as limited to offenses uncovered during their investigation of his tax returns dating back to 2014, and his illegal purchase of a firearm in 2018, when he was a heavy drug user, they said.
When the judge asked Leo Wise, a lead prosecutor in the case, if the investigation of Mr. Biden was continuing, he answered, “Yes.”
When she asked him, hypothetically, if the deal would preclude an investigation into possible violation of laws regulating foreign lobbying by Mr. Biden connected with his consulting and legal work, he replied, “No.”
Mr. Biden then told the judge he could not agree to any deal that did not offer him broad immunity, and Mr. Clark popped up angrily to declare the deal “null and void.”
The disagreement over such a central element of the deal was remarkable, given the months of negotiations that went into reaching it."
Last edited:
Yes that’s what was said but I don’t think the govt and the lawyers for the presidents son don’t go into a plea deal without knowing what the other side is offering
It's not that they didn't know, it's that a provision of the plea was written so (intentionally?) poorly that the parties disagreed on what it actually meant. This is what happens when a prosecutor strays from standard plea language and attempts to craft a case-specific provision to appease a well-connected defendant. The Government was trying to split hairs so that Biden's team thought they were getting one thing and the U.S. could argue it was something different down the road. Shady shit, to be fair. When the judge called them on it in open court, the wheels fell off.
If this^^^ is accurate, then the alleged rot at the highest levels of the DOJ is 100% true.
Trump appointed but a democrat from Delaware.
I’m Leary thst this was done so he didn’t have to plea guilty and they can now vote to acquit. The ol Potomac two step (only in Delaware)
You’re projecting again. No one on the left gives a shit about Hunter. No one is going to “go after” the judge.
My prediction: Sux months from now, Joe will still be President and Hunter will still be free, finger painting and blowing smoke. Do you really expect anything different?
^^^still looking for someone stupider than himself. If you agree with him, you're the someone.
**there is no evidence that Joe Biden has committed a crime. zero.
What is your definition of "evidence"? I'd seriously like to know because (1) witness testimony, (2) bank/financial records, (3) emails, texts, and other electronic communications, (4) photographs, (5) flight logs, and (6) Biden's own statements/admissions are all, in fact, evidence - in every sense of the term. Now is some of it circumstantial? Certainly - especially as it pertains to the emails, texts, and electronic communications made by Hunter to others concerning his dad, but circumstantial evidence is evidence nonetheless. You may not want it to be evidence, but it is. My guess is you keep telling yourself this lie to justify your continued support of a POTUS that's just even sleazier and more corrupt than Trump. This makes you the most morally and intellectually bankrupt poster on this board, and you know it.
The trail of evidence is starting to pile up. The tape of Biden discussing payments for getting the prosecutor fired needs to be released.
You idiot. There is a huge difference between evidence, and evidence of a crime. And your being stupid enough to not being able to differentiate the two is your problem. Not mine.
^^^idiot is still looking for someone stupider than himself. If you agree with him, you're the someone.
Now do:
Substantiated sars and unsubstantiated sars. Idiot.
Mush is tied to the corruption. You cant separate the two.
You're a liar about that^^in the same way you're a liar about the "rigged" election, the origin of Covid 19, and everything else. You have no evidence to support your lying conspiracy theories.
It was determined there was none regarding orange jesus and campaign. There was for some of those in his circle.
thus, "not guilty", which only makes you look like a silly senile geriatric baby when you parrot "but but but impeached!"
hey, at least you finally admitted yore an idiot.
You're right, noticing that no one bothers the Supreme Court justices.
your orange jesus wasn't impeached because of alleged collusion. He was impeached for soliciting foreign interference to investigate a political opponent, withholding aid as legislated by Congress (abuse of power), and obstruction of justice.
You've always proven you're an idiot and liar. Want proof?? You're here.
The left is most certainly against the current court. Now that the court is making rulings correctly and making congress do their job instead of relying on fantasy rulings and so called “precedent”
what do you think that means? hilarious that his political opponent did just what yore side impeached him over . . . and that he was found "not guilty" of.
Allegations that Trump sought help from Ukrainian authorities to favor him in the 2020 U.S. presidential election
It means exactly what it says.
No. His political opponent did not do just that.
He was found not guilty twice by republican majorities in the Senate.
You're a liar. Want proof?? You're here.
It's hard to know on its face if it is true when the Tweeter (Xer?) is a politician running to the right of the current Missouri AG...which I didn't think was possible, but here we are. It's one of the fundamental problems with social media, for sure...everything is true if you want it to be.
What he says is 100% accurate from a legal standpoint - that is, his recitation of the law concerning federal plea agreements is correct. Application of the facts to the legal principles makes sense as well . . .
My comment is more to the point of social media being used to treat politicians as journalists. Or politicians to present themselves as journalists.
Knowing his background, I'm 100% sure he is knowledgeable. And it absolutely makes sense. The question would be was the US Atty's aim to help Hunter, or bullshit him and his attorneys. I'm cynical enough to consider both, given my mistrust of prosecutors (and current American politics) in general. The US Atty being a holdover from Trump just makes it more weird.
The issue I was getting to is the average person would only know this person presents themselves as an expert...but he's a little bit more than that. Then you will get people quoting it without a provision to link to his Twitter homepage to see he is a candidate. Hell, I only knew without looking at that because my local TV channels are now from Missouri...which kinda makes me a little sick to my stomach lol.
