Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[jhu72]

Not so fast, cradle. Looks like the plea agreement is back on although Hunter isn’t getting the assurance that he certainly wanted which was that this agreement concludes all criminal investigations involving him.

Apparently gun charge goes away. Feds won't go after anything that was prior to 2000 I think I heard.

[cradleandshoot]

... so it looks like the plea agreement is dead. Seems the judge was looking after Hunter's best interest, or a very cleaver gambit. In any case I got the impression the issue of who impersonated what/who/when was not a concern of the judge.

Let the whining from the FLP liberals begin. I feel bad for ggait and his brilliant legal mind. He excoriated me for suggesting such a thing would ever happen. Me thinks counselor ggait will have to come on this forum and chow down a heaping helping of crow.
There must be a lotta people over at the DOJ dropping a load in their pants right about now.

... don't get ahead of yourself spanky. News now reporting the two sides are coming to agreement on a new agreement which sounds more favorable to Hunter Biden. We'll see.

You could be correct sparky. It is the gun charge magically going away which was pure BS in my opinion. Hunters lawyers will have to do some fancy footwork to change the mind of a very skeptical judge. There was an interesting answer from Weiss to a question from the judge. When the judge asked Weiss if the HB case was closed he answered that it was not but could not elaborate any further than that. What is that all about??

[ggait]

Plea agreement is not dead at all.

There was a minor dispute between the lawyers about exactly what charges were/were not being settled. That dispute between the lawyers has been public knowledge for weeks. Totally appropriate for the judge to ask about that.

Somewhat surprising that the two sides did not have that wrinkle worked out in advance of the hearing today. But that matter was quickly resolved today.

And I see absolutely nothing in the reporting about Youth's preposterous BS suggestion that HB's lawyers impersonated the opposing counsel. Which was completely absurd from the get go. And now proven false. Youth -- you really shouldn't get your news from Jesse Waters!

PS -- the disagreement was about what charges were being settled. Typically that isn't any issue -- the agreement settles the charges that were filed (in this case tax and gun charges). The DE US Atty (you know the deep state Biden hack appointed by Trump) did not want to waive any other possible charges against Hunter. Like potential FARA violations. Hunter's counsel (doing his job zealously) wanted waiver/immunity for other potential charges.

The DE US Atty won that point. Which is strange, since all the MAGAs on here tell us he is totally in the tank for Hunter.

[cradleandshoot]

Plea agreement is not dead at all.

There was a minor dispute between the lawyers about exactly what charges were/were not being settled. That dispute between the lawyers has been public knowledge for weeks. Totally appropriate for the judge to ask about that.

Somewhat surprising that the two sides did not have that wrinkle worked out in advance of the hearing today. But that matter was quickly resolved today.

And I see absolutely nothing in the reporting about Youth's BS suggestion that HB's lawyers impersonated the opposing counsel. Which was completely absurd from the get go. And now proven false. Youth -- you really shouldn't get your news from Jesse Waters!

PS -- the disagreement was about what charges were being settled. Typically that isn't any issue -- the agreement settles the charges that were filed (in this case tax and gun charges). The DE US Atty (you know the deep state Biden hack appointed by Trump) did not want to waive any other possible charges against Hunter. Like potential FARA violations. Hunter's counsel (doing his job zealously) wanted waiver/immunity for other potential charges.

The DE US Atty won that point. Which is strange, since all the MAGAs on here tell us he is totally in the tank for Hunter.

I think a reasonable solution would be for the judge to delay signing off on this agreement while she reviews it some more given recent events that effect the agreement.

[jhu72]

... so it looks like the plea agreement is dead. Seems the judge was looking after Hunter's best interest, or a very cleaver gambit. In any case I got the impression the issue of who impersonated what/who/when was not a concern of the judge.

Let the whining from the FLP liberals begin. I feel bad for ggait and his brilliant legal mind. He excoriated me for suggesting such a thing would ever happen. Me thinks counselor ggait will have to come on this forum and chow down a heaping helping of crow.
There must be a lotta people over at the DOJ dropping a load in their pants right about now.

... don't get ahead of yourself spanky. News now reporting the two sides are coming to agreement on a new agreement which sounds more favorable to Hunter Biden. We'll see.

You could be correct sparky. It is the gun charge magically going away which was pure BS in my opinion. Hunters lawyers will have to do some fancy footwork to change the mind of a very skeptical judge. There was an interesting answer from Weiss to a question from the judge. When the judge asked Weiss if the HB case was closed he answered that it was not but could not elaborate any further than that. What is that all about??

.. there may be something post 1999 / 2000 (I think) that is still being investigated. Which would be fair game. My take.

[ggait]

Judge, who seems to be doing a fine job, punts on approving the deal today.

She seemed to think that the gun charge was so minor/trivial that it should not even be mentioned in a plea deal.

Since it wasn't a plea but a diversion that makes the charge go away completely once the diversion program is completed. And diversions, being so minor, are not typically even made public.

Doesn't seem like the judge (Trump appointee) had any substantive problem with diverting the gun charge. Just technical questions.

Ironic that Justice Thomas' wacko SCOTUS gun opinion may let HB walk on the gun charge. So presumably Thomas is another Deep Stater in on the Biden fix?

[youthathletics]

Plea agreement is not dead at all.

There was a minor dispute between the lawyers about exactly what charges were/were not being settled. That dispute between the lawyers has been public knowledge for weeks. Totally appropriate for the judge to ask about that.

Somewhat surprising that the two sides did not have that wrinkle worked out in advance of the hearing today. But that matter was quickly resolved today.

And I see absolutely nothing in the reporting about Youth's preposterous BS suggestion that HB's lawyers impersonated the opposing counsel. Which was completely absurd from the get go. And now proven false. Youth -- you really shouldn't get your news from Jesse Waters!

PS -- the disagreement was about what charges were being settled. Typically that isn't any issue -- the agreement settles the charges that were filed (in this case tax and gun charges). The DE US Atty (you know the deep state Biden hack appointed by Trump) did not want to waive any other possible charges against Hunter. Like potential FARA violations. Hunter's counsel (doing his job zealously) wanted waiver/immunity for other potential charges.

The DE US Atty won that point. Which is strange, since all the MAGAs on here tell us he is totally in the tank for Hunter.

.... we all know L&W can not take an L on a a technicality error with the Court Clerk, that would be devastating to L&W. In the NYP article there are quotes from Bengel.... a play on words, a ploy to buy time, an accident, who knows; well, other than you of course. Do you like your crow prepared grilled or roasted?

[jhu72]

Sounds like the expected deal after writing it up and judge getting chance to pass on it:
--- 3 tax charges pre-2000 go away
--- the gun charge will be handled as before -- goes away with probation
--- anything after 1999 remains fair game and will be subject of the ongoing investigation - FARA violation possibility is mentioned by talking heads

[ggait]

.... we all know L&W can not take an L on a a technicality error with the Court Clerk, that would be devastating to L&W. In the NYP articlethere are quotes from Bengel.... a play on words, a ploy to buy time, an accident, who knows; well, other than you of course.

I'm sorry, did the judge even mention the alleged impersonation plot today? Did I miss that?

If the judge thought there was anything there, dontcha think she would have said something? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

Please get back to me with any facts indicating the judge thinks there is anything at all to your bogus claims.

At least I cite to National Review. Are you really relying on the NY Post to back up tour BS?

Couldn't find anything on NewsMax?

[njbill]

The judge has questions about the plea deal so it was not finalized today. The parties will file briefs responding to the judge’s questions. It appears there is an agreement as to what the plea deal covers – gun, drug, and tax charges - and what it does not, e.g., FARA charges. This appears to be a concession, or a backing off, by Hunter’s attorneys, who at least publicly had said that this deal resolved all potential criminal matters.

The judge has concerns about the gun diversion agreement. One concern is that the law to which Hunter is pleading guilty may be unconstitutional. She wants to know what would happen to the deal if that were to occur? The parties responded that the deal would still be in place since it is a contract between the parties. The judge didn’t seem to be entirely satisfied with that. As I understand it, Hunter was not pleading guilty to filing a false statement on a gun application form, but to illegally possessing a gun while being addicted to drugs. The question about the constitutionality of this law has arisen thanks to Clarence Thomas‘s opinion last month that (and I’m intentionally unfairly paraphrasing) it is constitutional for addicts to possess guns.

Also, the diversion aspect of the deal calls for the judge to get involved, in essence, as an arbitrator if questions come up about that down the road. The judge isn’t sure she has the authority to do that. As a practical matter, I suspect she doesn’t want to have any further involvement.

At this point, it sounds to me like the open issues and the judge’s questions are resolvable. We shall see.

It doesn’t sound like there was any discussion about the whistleblower allegations or the kerfuffle about who said what to the clerk yesterday.

[DocBarrister]

Plea agreement is not dead at all.

There was a minor dispute between the lawyers about exactly what charges were/were not being settled. That dispute between the lawyers has been public knowledge for weeks. Totally appropriate for the judge to ask about that.

Somewhat surprising that the two sides did not have that wrinkle worked out in advance of the hearing today. But that matter was quickly resolved today.

And I see absolutely nothing in the reporting about Youth's preposterous BS suggestion that HB's lawyers impersonated the opposing counsel. Which was completely absurd from the get go. And now proven false. Youth -- you really shouldn't get your news from Jesse Waters!

PS -- the disagreement was about what charges were being settled. Typically that isn't any issue -- the agreement settles the charges that were filed (in this case tax and gun charges). The DE US Atty (you know the deep state Biden hack appointed by Trump) did not want to waive any other possible charges against Hunter. Like potential FARA violations. Hunter's counsel (doing his job zealously) wanted waiver/immunity for other potential charges.

The DE US Atty won that point. Which is strange, since all the MAGAs on here tell us he is totally in the tank for Hunter.

Very sloppy lawyering. Inexcusable.

The most important reporting:

[Judge] Noreika asked if there were more serious charges that could still be brought and the prosecutors and Hunter Biden’s lawyer both said there were not.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna96232

I suspect (do not know) that the lawyers on both sides interpreted that differently. Prosecutors don’t think more serious charges are likely but won’t commit to that until their investigation is formally concluded. Hunter Biden’s lawyers on the other hand, apparently thought that meant no further charges would be brought.

It is also apparently quite odd to involve the court as a potential factfinder in a relatively routine diversion program for a relatively routine gun charge.

My guess is that the plea agreement gets done within a few weeks.

But today’s hearing is borderline legal malpractice. No way the prosecutors and Hunter Biden’s lawyers should have allowed this debacle to occur.

With respect to a battle of criminal charges, Trump is not going to win that. By the end of the summer, Trump will probably be facing four sets of criminal indictments in four different courts in four different jurisdictions. Hunter Biden is going to become a minor footnote compared to that.

DocBarrister

[jhu72]

.... we all know L&W can not take an L on a a technicality error with the Court Clerk, that would be devastating to L&W. In the NYP articlethere are quotes from Bengel.... a play on words, a ploy to buy time, an accident, who knows; well, other than you of course.

I'm sorry, did the judge even mention the alleged impersonation plot today? Did I miss that?

If the judge thought there was anything there, dontcha think she would have said something? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

Please get back to me with any facts indicating the judge thinks there is anything at all to your bogus claims.

At least I cite to National Review. Are you really relying on the NY Post to back up tour BS?

Couldn't find anything on NewsMax?

--- my take, no crow given court's reaction (non-reaction).

[ggait]

I suspect (do not know) that the lawyers on both sides interpreted that differently. Prosecutors don’t think more serious charges are likely but won’t commit to that until their investigation is formally concluded. Hunter Biden’s lawyers on the other hand, apparently thought that meant no further charges would be brought.

Probably not malpractice. More likely both sides being zealously aggressive. This question has been in open dispute between Clark and Weiss for weeks. Clark was on one of the Sunday shows talking about it a few weeks ago. As is often the case, parties only resolve stuff when on the courthouse steps (in this case, actually in front of the judge).

Bottom line, seems like everyone is doing their job. Including the Trump appointed judge and prosecutor. Who, we were told, were in the tank for Hunter.

Literally ZERO evidence of that today. ZERO.

And the faux impersonation thing, of course, was BS that the judge did not mention at all.

So my scoring.

Independent legal system and rule of law -- 1.

GOP/MAGA conspiracy theory BS -- 0.0000000000000000000000000.

[youthathletics]

.... we all know L&W can not take an L on a a technicality error with the Court Clerk, that would be devastating to L&W. In the NYP articlethere are quotes from Bengel.... a play on words, a ploy to buy time, an accident, who knows; well, other than you of course.

I'm sorry, did the judge even mention the alleged impersonation plot today? Did I miss that?

If the judge thought there was anything there, dontcha think she would have said something? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

Please get back to me with any facts indicating the judge thinks there is anything at all to your bogus claims.

At least I cite to National Review. Are you really relying on the NY Post to back up tour BS?

Couldn't find anything on NewsMax?

Funny how I provide facts and you crap on the cite, which was one of the only ones that included actual quotes from the legal teams. You must love working traffic court cases.

The judge knows damned well both sides are up to shenanigan's and currently she ain't having it. She just caught them trying to work a deal where hunter is damned near immune in perpetuity...then asked if there is precedent..of course the answer was, NO. if I read that accurately.

[ggait]

Funny how I provide facts and you crap on the cite, which was one of the only ones that included actual quotes from the legal teams. You must love working traffic court cases.

Did the judge mention your nefarious alleged impersonation scheme or not today?

Yes or no answer would be fine.

And please be sure to get back to us if the judge ever mentions the alleged impersonation or pursues sanctions against LW down the road.

Thx.

[youthathletics]

Funny how I provide facts and you crap on the cite, which was one of the only ones that included actual quotes from the legal teams. You must love working traffic court cases.

Did the judge mention your nefarious alleged impersonation scheme or not today?

Yes or no answer would be fine.

And please be sure to get back to us if the judge ever mentions the alleged impersonation or pursues sanctions against LW down the road.

Thx.

That does not mean shenanigans did not happen...both can be true. And the judge is not going to sidetrack the case on plea day....she already knows the two sides are trying to eff with her.

[cradleandshoot]

Funny how I provide facts and you crap on the cite, which was one of the only ones that included actual quotes from the legal teams. You must love working traffic court cases.

Did the judge mention your nefarious alleged impersonation scheme or not today?

Yes or no answer would be fine.

And please be sure to get back to us if the judge ever mentions the alleged impersonation or pursues sanctions against LW down the road.

Thx.

Did the judge ask you for your opinion? I don't think so scooter... every lawyer worth his/her salt is now coming out of the woodwork to express a legal opinion. I wonder how long it will take before this judge will no longer be able to dine out at a restaurant without a group of FLP hecklers getting in her grill?

[cradleandshoot]

Funny how I provide facts and you crap on the cite, which was one of the only ones that included actual quotes from the legal teams. You must love working traffic court cases.

Did the judge mention your nefarious alleged impersonation scheme or not today?

Yes or no answer would be fine.

And please be sure to get back to us if the judge ever mentions the alleged impersonation or pursues sanctions against LW down the road.

Thx.

That does not mean shenanigans did not happen...both can be true. And the judge is not going to sidetrack the case on plea day....she already knows the two sides are trying to eff with her.

+1

[jhu72]

,,, more like they were effing with each other.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Funny how I provide facts and you crap on the cite, which was one of the only ones that included actual quotes from the legal teams. You must love working traffic court cases.

Did the judge mention your nefarious alleged impersonation scheme or not today?

Yes or no answer would be fine.

And please be sure to get back to us if the judge ever mentions the alleged impersonation or pursues sanctions against LW down the road.

Thx.

That does not mean shenanigans did not happen...both can be true. And the judge is not going to sidetrack the case on plea day....she already knows the two sides are trying to eff with her.

Again, this sounds like a routine court appearance and final negotiation of the plea deal. Your ability, YA, to transform the ordinary workings of the court and justice systems into bizarre conspiracies is kind of special.