Will the judge in the Hunter Biden case shoot down his plea deal.

[Offthemat]

Hunter was the American version of Uday and Qusay.  He took every opportunity available to take advantage of his father’s power, probably in reaction to his father having taken advantage of him to include him in his criminal activities.  His father, being part of the country’s second largest attempted coup, and the subsequent president following its third coup, is now the worst criminal to ever hold the office.  Neither will be neglected until there is some accountability.  

[WrestlingRasta]

That is an interesting comparison I have never heard before. 

[VakAttack]

20 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

This just seems so shady and weird...does this happen a lot where the judge rejects the plea deal?  

The answer is yes, but it depends on the judge (also I supposed it would depend on what you qualify as a lot).  Also, given this is a federal case, plea deals are a little different than what most people think of; in state level court, where I work, the sentence is agreed upon, and while judges can interject, they typically won't. In federal court, where Hunter Biden's case is, they're really more of "joint sentencing recommendations" with prosecutors typically dropping charges (a practice sometimes referred to as charge-bargaining) to create a joint recommendation of a sentence and a sentencing range.  The judge still has to choose to impose the recommended sentence, and they often interject themselves.

As to this particular situation, I didn't watch the hearing myself obviously, but most of the reporting seems to indicate that when it was presented to the judge, the attorneys for both sides disagreed on aspects of it, which means there wasn't actually an agreement at all (for a plea agreement to be final, both parties have to agree to all aspects), and this was essentially delayed for now while the two sides try to reach a final, full agreement.  In the end, it will still be up to the judge to accept the recommendation, though.

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

The answer is yes, but it depends on the judge (also I supposed it would depend on what you qualify as a lot).  Also, given this is a federal case, plea deals are a little different than what most people think of; in state level court, where I work, the sentence is agreed upon, and while judges can interject, they typically won't. In federal court, where Hunter Biden's case is, they're really more of "joint sentencing recommendations" with prosecutors typically dropping charges (a practice sometimes referred to as charge-bargaining) to create a joint recommendation of a sentence and a sentencing range.  The judge still has to choose to impose the recommended sentence, and they often interject themselves.

As to this particular situation, I didn't watch the hearing myself obviously, but most of the reporting seems to indicate that when it was presented to the judge, the attorneys for both sides disagreed on aspects of it, which means there wasn't actually an agreement at all (for a plea agreement to be final, both parties have to agree to all aspects), and this was essentially delayed for now while the two sides try to reach a final, full agreement.  In the end, it will still be up to the judge to accept the recommendation, though.

but ... but ... we wanted another conspiracy! 

[DJT]

14 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

The answer is yes, but it depends on the judge (also I supposed it would depend on what you qualify as a lot).  Also, given this is a federal case, plea deals are a little different than what most people think of; in state level court, where I work, the sentence is agreed upon, and while judges can interject, they typically won't. In federal court, where Hunter Biden's case is, they're really more of "joint sentencing recommendations" with prosecutors typically dropping charges (a practice sometimes referred to as charge-bargaining) to create a joint recommendation of a sentence and a sentencing range.  The judge still has to choose to impose the recommended sentence, and they often interject themselves.

As to this particular situation, I didn't watch the hearing myself obviously, but most of the reporting seems to indicate that when it was presented to the judge, the attorneys for both sides disagreed on aspects of it, which means there wasn't actually an agreement at all (for a plea agreement to be final, both parties have to agree to all aspects), and this was essentially delayed for now while the two sides try to reach a final, full agreement.  In the end, it will still be up to the judge to accept the recommendation, though.

One legal analyst on CNN called the situation exceptionally rare and described it as a wedding ceremony where both the bride and groom objected to marriage.

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, DJT said:

One legal analyst on CNN called the situation exceptionally rare and described it as a wedding ceremony where both the bride and groom objected to marriage.

Having not seen the segment you're talking about, it sounds like what he's describing as rare (and he's right) is both sides showing up and saying they have an agreement when they really didn't, not the judge interjecting.  In that situation where that occurs (I've had it happen to me once) it's typically either a result of sloppy lawyering or one side trying to bully the other at the last second for more favorable terms.

[Offthemat]

Try this:   https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/27/how-a-federal-judge-turned-the-tables-on-hunter-bidens-plea-deal/

 

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.

 

It wasn’t to protect Hunter, it was to say that if Hunter didn’t get prosecuted for it then you can’t say Joe was guilty of being in on it.  

Edited July 27, 2023 by Offthemat

[DJT]

51 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Having not seen the segment you're talking about, it sounds like what he's describing as rare (and he's right) is both sides showing up and saying they have an agreement when they really didn't, not the judge interjecting. 

Correct. That’s how I took it as well.

[Plasmodium]

I'll reserve judgement on this until I see the actual plea agreement.  By any plea agreement, Biden certainly will be immune from any additional federal charges on 17-18 taxes and the gun charge.  Dollars to doughnuts, that is all that is in the agreement.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Plasmodium
added additional

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I'll reserve judgement on this until I see the actual plea agreement.  By any plea agreement, Biden certainly will be immune from any additional federal charges on 17-18 taxes and the gun charge.  Dollars to doughnuts, that is all that is in the agreement.

If this was Trump though...you'd have him in the chair already.  

[Plasmodium]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

If this was Trump though...you'd have him in the chair already.  

No.  I have never said that Trump is guilty, let alone should be executed.  I have said that evidence against him is overwhelming in the classified docs case and I have said he gets his day in court in all of his many cases.

[Bigbrog]

7 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

No.  I have never said that Trump is guilty, let alone should be executed.  I have said that evidence against him is overwhelming in the classified docs case and I have said he gets his day in court in all of his many cases.

I was razzing you!  Now if you were Mikey I would have meant it!

[mspart]

12 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Ugh. All this means is we’re going to have more Hunter in the news cycle. More Hunter on the House and Senate floors.  When do these folks get tired of Hunter. Even Parnas is saying they should just move on (of course they may be for his own best interest, but still). 

This is a huge federal legal issue.   It needs to be resolved objectively.   If that means more Hunter in the news, then so be it.   The Feds need to get this right and it appears to everyone that they are doing their darnedest to get it wrong.   It is not a good look to the majority of citizens I'm sure.    Even those who are on Team Biden must be thinking, "wait, what if I get in trouble, will I get the same kind of help Hunter is getting?"   Of course we all know the answer to that.   It depends on when and what party controls the presidency.   I hate to say it that bluntly, but that is where this country is going.   So now, who can trust the Judiciary to do the right thing?   Hopefully this gets corrected. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

https://www.justsecurity.org/75954/is-roger-stone-getting-off-easy-for-tax-fraud/
 

https://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-deal-resurfaces-gop-republicans-hunter-biden-investigation-1760458
 

they’re not serious. They’re shit shows. If they were serious they’d be equal opportunity. 
 

More Hunter is nowhere near the top of the serious list for what this country needs right now. It’s misdirection plain and simple. 

[Offthemat]

No one is above the law, right?

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

No one is above the law, right?

Correct, and it is playing out in the court of law. Congress should focus more on their branch of government. Plenty of legislative needs to work on. 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Correct, and it is playing out in the court of law. Congress should focus more on their branch of government. Plenty of legislative needs to work on. 

Any meaningful legislation that passed the House now would be shot down by the Senate or President.  It won’t hurt you to learn details. 

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Any meaningful legislation that passed the House now would be shot down by the Senate or President.  It won’t hurt you to learn details. 

Not saying we haven’t learned anything. Not saying what has been investigated wasn’t worthy. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 hours ago, Offthemat said:

No one is above the law, right?

[mspart]

7 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Not saying we haven’t learned anything. Not saying what has been investigated wasn’t worthy. 

But you are saying that Hunter is not worth the attention.   He allegedly broke federal law and pleaded guilty to that.   That means he broke more laws than what he is pleading guilty to.   And his plea bargain was a sweetheart of a deal.   But no more.   The hearings with the whistleblowers had a lot to do with the judge's "new" direction on this in my opinion.   Maybe not, but the timing is interesting. 

Defense and prosecutors had different ideas as to what the plea bargain was.   Defense thought it meant immunity from future prosecution as well.   Feds couldn't say that out loud or write it down because that means they are no longer investigating other wrong doing and that wouldn't look right to anyone.   So there is a difference there.   That's what I see.  The whistleblowers showed that there is a lot more to this story than just the little bit in the plea bargains.   The judge rightly called the plea bargain into question.   That's my opinion.  

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

37 minutes ago, mspart said:

But you are saying that Hunter is not worth the attention.  

Uggggh. I’m not really up for the whole “I’m going to argue that you’re saying something even if you didn’t say it” thing. You have a nice for that, and I’m not in the mood to play. 
 

I said that’s enough for Congress. It’s time the MAGA’s in this Congress try doing some legislating for change. 
 

Hopefully that clears it up. 

[mspart]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Uggggh. I’m not really up for the whole “I’m going to argue that you’re saying something even if you didn’t say it” thing. You have a nice for that, and I’m not in the mood to play. 
 

I said that’s enough for Congress. It’s time the MAGA’s in this Congress try doing some legislating for change. 
 

Hopefully that clears it up. 

Not really.   You have said it repeatedly whether you want to acknowledge it or not. 

If not for the whistleblowers, the deal with Hunter would be over.   Again that is my opinion.   It is not over and I attribute that to Congress bringing on the hearing and letting the whistle blowers have their say.   And it was a lot.   So it is not enough for Congress is my point.   They are doing what the admin won't do.   I agree it is not really Congress' issue to deal with, but it otherwise was not being dealt with.   Perhaps it is time for the Ds in the WH to take things seriously rather than try to save an alleged felon and letting him get away with it.    Unfortunately for them, it implies wrongdoing by current POTUS so they want this hushed up as it appears you do based on your many posts on the Hunter saga.

Either Joe is lying or Hunter was lying when Hunter told the chinese guy that his dad was sitting beside him and they both would be very angry if this didn't turn out like they wanted it to.   And that comment is incontrovertible.   Someone ain't telling the truth.    

mspart

[Plasmodium]

I like Hunter Biden, I hope he gets some sort of reality show out of all this attention so he can stay on or near the front page.  Dude knows how to party.

[DJT]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Uggggh. I’m not really up for the whole “I’m going to argue that you’re saying something even if you didn’t say it” thing. You have a nice for that, and I’m not in the mood to play. 
 

I said that’s enough for Congress. It’s time the MAGA’s in this Congress try doing some legislating for change. 
 

Hopefully that clears it up. 

The House more responsibly than just writing laws. They also have oversight and investigatory functions, which is what they’re exercising. If all they did was write laws, they might as well stay home, because Biden has made it pretty clear he’ll veto anything the Republicans get through to his desk. It looks bad upon the incumbent nominee to sign his opponent’s legislation into law.
 

 

[mspart]

It looks worse for the incumbent to be implicated in felony crimes.   Better to sweep it under the rug.   Kudos to Congress for holding the hearings. 

mspart