Failed Plea deal

[beej]

https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/26/incompetence-or-corruption-legal-experts-explain-what-judges-refusal-to-accept-hunter-biden-plea-deal-reveals/

Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, told the DCNF plea agreement would have caused "too much of a political backlash" if the terms revealed in court were written down.

"The Biden Justice Department's sweetheart deal with Hunter Biden couldn't even withstand basic questioning by a friendly Delaware federal judge," Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, told the DCNF. "That's because we now know there was an even sweeter secret deal: today was supposed to be the end of all criminal charges involving the Biden family. They were going to protect President Biden by sweeping under the rug today in Delaware all the Biden family crimes."

"The Biden Justice Department couldn't write that into the plea agreement, because it would cause too much of a political backlash," Davis continued. "And the Biden DOJ could continue to pretend they are investigating Biden crimes–and continue to protect the Bidens by rebuffing congressional inquiries under the false claim of an 'ongoing investigation.'"

Attorney Sol Wisenberg called it "a joke" that "the prosecution and defense would disagree about the terms of the agreement in open court."

"There should be no room for disagreement on the key terms of the agreement," he tweeted. "So, this was either astounding incompetence or corruption on DOJ's part. I think it is corruption."

Lawyer and former federal prosecutor Bill Shipley tweeted that the hearing outcome "is a cover story" and that there is "no way" the two teams didn't discuss whether other charges were still possible until today. Shipley provided two possibilities: either there was an unwritten "wink and nod" agreement he would face no further charges or the potential for future charges was an "excuse" to "to step back and talk about the case further rather than go forward."

"This was performance art today," Shipley tweeted. "They knew they couldn't go forward in the face of the IRS whistleblower testimony and all the other revelations about how Hunter and Biden family members getting millions of foreign revenue."

The most likely explanation that I can think of:
JONATHAN TURLEY: This is really a case of the Department of Justice being hoisted on its own petard, because the Justice Department needs to say that there's an ongoing investigation to stop giving information, holding back witnesses to Congress. They need that element. But this judge immediately called them on it and said, "Well, what is it?" The Hunter Biden team said publicly that they believe this was a closed-out plea agreement, which is what I would have negotiated as defense counsel. There is no way I would agree to a plea agreement where we didn't close out the charges. Otherwise, you've got Damocles' sword hanging over your client's head. And the Hunter Biden people said, "That was our understanding. There's nothing further involving our client." But that's inconsistent with the DOJ, which is using the ongoing element to hold off Congress. And so this is really a problem of the DOJ's making. They want to cap off this case and end it, but they also want to pretend that it's ongoing. And you can't have that ambiguity with a federal judge.

[beej]

Further explanation including the judges line of questioning. I, at first, could not believe the incompetence of Biden's lawyers to not have this completely sealed up. This looks like it was all on the prosecutors. There are real questions to be asked in this case.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/27/hunter-biden-hidden-immunity-deal-stunning-court-transcripts/

"The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached Statement of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day," the diversion agreement reads.

Judge Noreika asked Hunter Biden, his lawyer Chris Clark and DOJ prosecutor Leo Wise about the terms of the diversion agreement and its connection to Biden's guilty plea, which lays out the payments Biden received from Chinese, Ukrainian and Romanian business interests.

"We're not making an exception. I want to know, has anyone made you any promises that are not contained in the written Memorandum of Plea Agreement?" she asked Biden.

"Yes, there are promises from the government in the Diversion Agreement, your Honor," Clark said.

"And sir, are you relying on the promises made in the Diversion Agreement in connection with your agreement to plead guilty?" she followed up.

"Yes, Your Honor," Biden said. (RELATED: Burisma Lobbyists Recommended By Hunter Biden Didn't Disclose Over $400,000 In Payments, Testimony Shows)

"And if the Diversion Agreement were not valid or unenforceable for any reason, would you enter into the Memorandum of Plea Agreement?" she pressed Biden.

"No, Your Honor," Biden responded.

"Paragraph 15 of the Diversion Agreement states the United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden outside of the terms of this agreement for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached statement of facts, Attachment A to the Diversion Agreement, and the statement of facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day," Noreika clarified.

"And just so we're clear, I think you already answered this, sir, but are you relying on that promise in connection with your agreement to accept the Memorandum of Plea Agreement and plead guilty?" she asked Biden.

"Yes, your honor," Biden replied.

"If that provision were not valid or not enforceable, would you accept the Memorandum of Plea Agreement?"

"No, your honor," Biden repeated.

"If you had no immunity from the government, perhaps even a different prosecutor and the government could bring a felony tax evasion charge or drug charges against you, would you still enter the plea agreement and plead guilty to these tax charges?" Noreika wondered.

"No, your Honor," Biden said.

Noreika continued to press Biden and Clark on the diversion agreement's immunity provision and how it connects to Biden entering his guilty plea.

"But he would not agree, just so I understand, sir, you would not agree to that plea agreement if you didn't get some immunity from other charges, is that right?" she questioned Clark.

"Speaking for my client, that's correct, your Honor," Clark asserted.

Noreika turned her attention to Wise to get more information about the diversion agreement's promises to Hunter Biden.

"So let me first ask, do you have any precedent for agreeing not to prosecute crimes that have nothing to do with the case or the charges being diverted?" Noreika asked Wise.

"I'm not aware of any, your Honor," Wise conceded.

"So have you ever seen — I think I just asked you this, but have you ever seen a Diversion Agreement where the agreement not to prosecute is so broad that it encompasses crimes in a different case?" Noreika continued.

"And I would say, Your Honor, I don't think it is broad in the sense that," Wise said as Noreika cut him off.

She asked Wise about whether Biden could still be charged under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) if the diversion agreement was finalized.

"All right. So there are references to foreign companies, for example, in the facts section. Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?" the judge said.

"Yes," Wise stated.

"I need you to answer my question if you can. Is there a meeting of the minds on that one?" Noreika proceeded to ask Clark.

"As stated by the government just now, I don't agree with what the government said," he snapped back.

"So I mean, these are contracts. To be enforceable, there has to be a meeting of the minds. So what do we do now?" Noreika said to Wise.

"Then there is no deal," Wise said.

[mkd]

Dang - if he has to return to court on another day, will they be releasing the killer bees for distraction?

Murder Hornets! or more Trump indictments or more 'UFOs'.

I can't decide which one is more ridiculously hilarious.

[beej]

So the Q is, who are "the government" that he refers to?

well a promise like that would have to come from the executive branch.

The head of the executive branch is the president.

oh shit!

[CNCAppsJames]

This is Bannana Republic stuff. I thought the Clinton's were corrupt... my gosh, these Bidens... the whole clan deserves a firing squad, Including Jill.

[RobertELee]

This is Bannana Republic stuff. I thought the Clinton's were corrupt... my gosh, these Bidens... the whole clan deserves a firing squad, Including Jill.

Thankfully there's an illegitimate granddaughter they want nothing to do with so at least 25% of Joe will live on.

[mkd]

Murder Hornets! or more Trump indictments or more 'UFOs'.

I can't decide which one is more ridiculously hilarious.

Who could have guessed.. more Trumped-up box-gate charges 😂😂😂

 Political soap opera 🫣🙄

[gcode]

This is Bannana Republic stuff. I thought the Clinton's were corrupt...

This shitshow would make a tin pot South American tyrant blush.... and our media is marching along in lockstep calling the tune.
The United States we grew up in is dead and gone. We are well and truly fucked.
 

[Jim at Gentex]

Yep.

It's all political theater, and it's sickening to watch. 

We all know full well that if this were Don Trump Jr. or Eric Trump, they would be buried UNDER the prison by now.

We also know full well that Hunter will get maybe, MAYBE, a little slap on the wrist and a fine that he will gladly accept, and the media will conveniently sweep it all under the rug by focusing on other stories. 

[beej]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunters-sweetheart-plea-deal-justice-department-lawyer-tax-gun-charge-whistleblower-irs-e271d08f?mod=opinion_featst_pos2

This included Hunter's deal related to his gun offense, in which the charge would be dropped so long as Hunter didn't use drugs or own a firearm for two years in a diversion program. In normal cases, Justice Department personnel would decide whether terms had been violated. But Hunter's team, worried that a future Republican administration would get to make that call, netted a unique deal that put the judge in charge of the question. Defense lawyer Chris Clark acknowledged this was a special proviso for Hunter, given the controversy surrounding the case and the potential for a "politicized" decision down the road. Yet Judge Noreika said the perk was so unusual as to be potentially unconstitutional, as it essentially granted her prosecutorial powers that belong to the executive branch.The judge was also taken aback by a deal that was structured to require her to "rubber stamp" pretty much all of it—stripping out a judge's usual ability to modify or reject provisions. How many defendants cajole their prosecutors into attempting to insulate them from a judge's oversight? Not many who aren't named Biden.

In short, the Justice Department has been caught playing games—and has no good answers. That's because it never expected to have to give any. 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.

[Del.]

Relax guys. He has after all saved the soul of America and we have never been more united because he fights just as hard for those who didn't vote for him.

[beej]

Relax guys. He has after all saved the soul of America and we have never been more united because he fights just as hard for those who didn't vote for him.

he got to you didn't he?? you're one of 'em now!

[Incogneeto]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The last two posts were really Funny!!!

[Del.]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The last two posts were really Funny!!!

What do you mean funny? Funny like a clown?

[Jim at Gentex]

What do you mean funny? Funny like a clown?

Do I amuse you?