a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:10 pm
House Subpoenas (drumroll) anyone other than the people in charge who can clear this mess up in five seconds.
Shocker.
After reading more about the plea "accidental implosion", it's obvious that Weiss (R) colluded with Barr to slow this now 6 year long investigation into the 2024 election. We're almost there.
The in just a few months, these offenses of Hunter happened a full freaking decade ago. Weiss is going so slow in his attempt to cripple Biden 2024, he's letting the statute of limitations run out.
...sure, you're not defending Hunter. Poor Hunter, he's such a victim. Nobody tried to help him out of the endless string of jams he created for himself. Did you buy his book, or one of his elementary school paintings ? The Biden team managed to keep Hunter off the menu for over 2 years while the SOLs run.
The House is calling to hear from 4 other agents at the Oct 2022 mtg to verify or contradict the key to the WB's allegations.
They were ear witnesses to what Weiss said about his autonomy & directions from above.
What are you afraid of finding out ? Maybe they'll support Weiss, undercut the WB's, & the whole issue will die away.
Rettig did act. The IRS referred the case to the DoJ.
https://optimataxrelief.com/when-does-t ... be%20filed. The IRS typically does not pursue criminal charges unless you exhibit a pattern of intentionally breaking tax laws. This can include non-filing, filing fraudulent returns, falsifying information on your return, not paying taxes, and more. The IRS statute of limitations could trigger charges to be filed. Currently, the IRS has six years from the return filing date to pursue criminal charges that related to failing to file and underreporting income.
If the IRS decides to open a case against you, they will refer it to the Department of Justice for prosecution. In order for the IRS to be successful in convicting someone for tax evasion, they must prove without reasonable doubt that the accused taxpayer (or nonpayer) acted in a deliberate and willful manner to avoid paying their taxes.
I remain astonished that the CA & DC US Attys did not allow Weiss to file charges for at least failure to file before the SOL ran for 2014 & 2015 tax years.
From the CBS report above : "Because it had been denied, he informed us the government would not be bringing charges against Hunter Biden for the 2014-2015 tax years, for which the statute of limitations were set to expire in one month. All of our years of effort getting to the bottom of the massive amounts of foreign money Hunter Biden received from Burisma and others during that period would be for nothing."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics ... index.html The IRS whistleblowers said the recommendation called for Hunter Biden to be charged with tax evasion and filing a false tax return – both felonies – for 2014, 2018 and 2019. The IRS also recommended that prosecutors charge him with failing to pay taxes on time, a misdemeanor, for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, according to the transcripts...
Great; so call Rettig and put him under oath in the House to explain the case they referred and what it did and did not include.
Why don't they call him?
One very plausible answer is that the facts of the case they referred is what Hunter was negotiating and tried to plead to... and there was no case involving Joe. Uhhh ohhh, that doesn't fit the scandal narrative...
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 6:40 pm
Cradle — how many dollars you want to bet the trump judge approves hunters plea deal in July?
I’ll give you 5/1 odds. Is
Which is a suckers bet. Since the chance of approval is 100%.
The bull shirt-ery on this is so ridiculous.
I had to go back and dig this up for ggaits benefit. Since counselor Ggait was wrong during our last discussion. I'm betting he was wishing and hoping I had forgotten all his original idiotic legal opinion. The bull shirt-ery was your brain child counselor. Do you have any integrity to explain how an uneducated slob like myself got it right while a highly educated and experienced lawyer like yourself got it all wrong?
I shoulda taken your bet....
So the chance of approval was 100% ????
Your only hope is for MD lax to come forward to bail your ass out.
You should have taken the bet.
The part that ggait was right about was that the judge didn't reject the deal because it was too lenient in punishment (which had been the argument on here) but rather because there was a constitutional issue in the judge's view as to who should decide whether Hunter had violated probation (did drugs); DOJ or judge. The other issue, how much immunity Hunter was getting, was resolved quickly...but neither defense or prosecution had a viable answer on the constitutional question.
That said, the deal did have the benefit from Hunter's perspective of sheltering him from a future MAGA DOJ bent on "retribution". The defense trusts the judge but not a future MAGA DOJ.
IMO, the deal that they will end up cutting is going to have to have Hunter take his chances with that possibility. The reality is that a MAGA world won't be bound by whatever legal strictures might be placed now, as it's pretty darn clear that the hard core, and most importantly, Trump himself have zero regard for truth and rule of law. So, "retribution" needn't really have legal basis. So, don't sweat that now. And stay off drugs...
The other way to go on all this is to take it to trial in DC and/or CA and let the chips fall where they may; it's entirely possible that Hunter gets more leniency in that process than in a plea deal. The gun charge probably gets thrown out entirely and having paid the back taxes, difficult to get a jury or a judge levy tough penalties beyond those that had been negotiated.
As I don't think there's sufficient evidence of crimes beyond what Hunter has publicly admitted to, it would be a huge risk for a prosecutor to charge more and then face likely losing. And so far, there's been no inkling that there's actually a further crime, much less hard proof that can stand up in court, coming out of those actually positioned to know, FBI, DOJ, SC...just a lot right wing scandal smearing efforts.
Re: Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:50 pm
by a fan
Here we go: TeamTinFoil is telling Republicans to tear our country apart. Power at all costs, McCarthyism over law and order and common sense.
Keep cheering this on, boys. Oh yeah-----"Trump is the libs fault".
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) fired off a sweeping request for documents dealing with former President Trump’s prosecution for election interference in Georgia, asking Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) to turn over all records relating to the case.
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 6:40 pm
Cradle — how many dollars you want to bet the trump judge approves hunters plea deal in July?
I’ll give you 5/1 odds. Is
Which is a suckers bet. Since the chance of approval is 100%.
The bull shirt-ery on this is so ridiculous.
I had to go back and dig this up for ggaits benefit. Since counselor Ggait was wrong during our last discussion. I'm betting he was wishing and hoping I had forgotten all his original idiotic legal opinion. The bull shirt-ery was your brain child counselor. Do you have any integrity to explain how an uneducated slob like myself got it right while a highly educated and experienced lawyer like yourself got it all wrong?
I shoulda taken your bet....
So the chance of approval was 100% ????
Your only hope is for MD lax to come forward to bail your ass out.
You should have taken the bet.
The part that ggait was right about was that the judge didn't reject the deal because it was too lenient in punishment (which had been the argument on here) but rather because there was a constitutional issue in the judge's view as to who should decide whether Hunter had violated probation (did drugs); DOJ or judge. The other issue, how much immunity Hunter was getting, was resolved quickly...but neither defense or prosecution had a viable answer on the constitutional question.
That said, the deal did have the benefit from Hunter's perspective of sheltering him from a future MAGA DOJ bent on "retribution". The defense trusts the judge but not a future MAGA DOJ.
IMO, the deal that they will end up cutting is going to have to have Hunter take his chances with that possibility. The reality is that a MAGA world won't be bound by whatever legal strictures might be placed now, as it's pretty darn clear that the hard core, and most importantly, Trump himself have zero regard for truth and rule of law. So, "retribution" needn't really have legal basis. So, don't sweat that now. And stay off drugs...
The other way to go on all this is to take it to trial in DC and/or CA and let the chips fall where they may; it's entirely possible that Hunter gets more leniency in that process than in a plea deal. The gun charge probably gets thrown out entirely and having paid the back taxes, difficult to get a jury or a judge levy tough penalties beyond those that had been negotiated.
As I don't think there's sufficient evidence of crimes beyond what Hunter has publicly admitted to, it would be a huge risk for a prosecutor to charge more and then face likely losing. And so far, there's been no inkling that there's actually a further crime, much less hard proof that can stand up in court, coming out of those actually positioned to know, FBI, DOJ, SC...just a lot right wing scandal smearing efforts.
Well but ggait was crystal clear 100% that the judge would never turn down the deal.. You went off on a bit of a tangent that you seldom do but HBs lawyers failed at pulling a fast one over on this judge. I'm guessing that didn't sit very well with her. That future amnesty deal hidden in the fine print, may have been a bridge 2 far for this judge? If only she hadn't read the actual agreement from cover to cover.
Re: Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2023 2:13 pm
by youthathletics
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:50 pm
Here we go: TeamTinFoil is telling Republicans to tear our country apart. Power at all costs, McCarthyism over law and order and common sense.
Keep cheering this on, boys. Oh yeah-----"Trump is the libs fault".
Why are fine with her/your side waiting 2 1/2 years to bring forth charges, and setting the trial date before Super Tuesday 2024, but so spun up against the r's dragging things out with Hunter. Standing over the ole' aquarium, fishing with a net again, see. Where is Bill Barr when you need em...eh?
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:50 pm
Here we go: TeamTinFoil is telling Republicans to tear our country apart. Power at all costs, McCarthyism over law and order and common sense.
Keep cheering this on, boys. Oh yeah-----"Trump is the libs fault".
Why are fine with her/your side waiting 2 1/2 years to bring forth charges, and setting the trial date before Super Tuesday 2024, but so spun up against the r's dragging things out with Hunter. Standing over the ole' aquarium, fishing with a net again, see. Where is Bill Barr when you need em...eh?
What does this have to do with what I posted?
As for "spun up"...So you're the only poster here who gets to invent TeamTinFoil "DeepState" conspiracies? Are you mad because I'm on your turf, making up nonsense theories that can be easily explained with non-partisan common sense?
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:50 pm
Here we go: TeamTinFoil is telling Republicans to tear our country apart. Power at all costs, McCarthyism over law and order and common sense.
Keep cheering this on, boys. Oh yeah-----"Trump is the libs fault".
Why are fine with her/your side waiting 2 1/2 years to bring forth charges, and setting the trial date before Super Tuesday 2024, but so spun up against the r's dragging things out with Hunter. Standing over the ole' aquarium, fishing with a net again, see. Where is Bill Barr when you need em...eh?
What does this have to do with what I posted?
As for "spun up"...So you're the only poster here who gets to invent TeamTinFoil "DeepState" conspiracies? Are you mad because I'm on your turf, making up nonsense theories that can be easily explained with non-partisan common sense?
I love having you join the rest of TeamTinFoilTeam....welcome aboard!
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:50 pm
Here we go: TeamTinFoil is telling Republicans to tear our country apart. Power at all costs, McCarthyism over law and order and common sense.
Keep cheering this on, boys. Oh yeah-----"Trump is the libs fault".
Why are fine with her/your side waiting 2 1/2 years to bring forth charges, and setting the trial date before Super Tuesday 2024, but so spun up against the r's dragging things out with Hunter. Standing over the ole' aquarium, fishing with a net again, see. Where is Bill Barr when you need em...eh?
What does this have to do with what I posted?
As for "spun up"...So you're the only poster here who gets to invent TeamTinFoil "DeepState" conspiracies? Are you mad because I'm on your turf, making up nonsense theories that can be easily explained with non-partisan common sense?
I love having you join the rest of TeamTinFoilTeam....welcome aboard!
Thanks, man! I hear you boys bring great BBQ and don't skimp on the apple pie for meetings. I'm in!
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:10 pm
House Subpoenas (drumroll) anyone other than the people in charge who can clear this mess up in five seconds.
Shocker.
After reading more about the plea "accidental implosion", it's obvious that Weiss (R) colluded with Barr to slow this now 6 year long investigation into the 2024 election. We're almost there.
The in just a few months, these offenses of Hunter happened a full freaking decade ago. Weiss is going so slow in his attempt to cripple Biden 2024, he's letting the statute of limitations run out.
...sure, you're not defending Hunter. Poor Hunter, he's such a victim. Nobody tried to help him out of the endless string of jams he created for himself. Did you buy his book, or one of his elementary school paintings ? The Biden team managed to keep Hunter off the menu for over 2 years while the SOLs run.
The House is calling to hear from 4 other agents at the Oct 2022 mtg to verify or contradict the key to the WB's allegations.
They were ear witnesses to what Weiss said about his autonomy & directions from above.
What are you afraid of finding out ? Maybe they'll support Weiss, undercut the WB's, & the whole issue will die away.
Rettig did act. The IRS referred the case to the DoJ.
https://optimataxrelief.com/when-does-t ... be%20filed. The IRS typically does not pursue criminal charges unless you exhibit a pattern of intentionally breaking tax laws. This can include non-filing, filing fraudulent returns, falsifying information on your return, not paying taxes, and more. The IRS statute of limitations could trigger charges to be filed. Currently, the IRS has six years from the return filing date to pursue criminal charges that related to failing to file and underreporting income.
If the IRS decides to open a case against you, they will refer it to the Department of Justice for prosecution. In order for the IRS to be successful in convicting someone for tax evasion, they must prove without reasonable doubt that the accused taxpayer (or nonpayer) acted in a deliberate and willful manner to avoid paying their taxes.
I remain astonished that the CA & DC US Attys did not allow Weiss to file charges for at least failure to file before the SOL ran for 2014 & 2015 tax years.
From the CBS report above : "Because it had been denied, he informed us the government would not be bringing charges against Hunter Biden for the 2014-2015 tax years, for which the statute of limitations were set to expire in one month. All of our years of effort getting to the bottom of the massive amounts of foreign money Hunter Biden received from Burisma and others during that period would be for nothing."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics ... index.html The IRS whistleblowers said the recommendation called for Hunter Biden to be charged with tax evasion and filing a false tax return – both felonies – for 2014, 2018 and 2019. The IRS also recommended that prosecutors charge him with failing to pay taxes on time, a misdemeanor, for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, according to the transcripts...
Great; so call Rettig and put him under oath in the House to explain the case they referred and what it did and did not include.
Why don't they call him?
One very plausible answer is that the facts of the case they referred is what Hunter was negotiating and tried to plead to... and there was no case involving Joe. Uhhh ohhh, that doesn't fit the scandal narrative...
Irrelevant smoke screen. It doesn't matter what Rettig thought anymore than what his WB agents thought. It's not their call. It's the DoJ's call.
...& whether or not they thought they had anything on Pop Joe is irrelevant to let the SOL run on HB's failure to file & pay for 2014-15.
Why did Weiss stop negotiating with the defense to extend the SOL ?
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 6:40 pm
Cradle — how many dollars you want to bet the trump judge approves hunters plea deal in July?
I’ll give you 5/1 odds. Is
Which is a suckers bet. Since the chance of approval is 100%.
The bull shirt-ery on this is so ridiculous.
I had to go back and dig this up for ggaits benefit. Since counselor Ggait was wrong during our last discussion. I'm betting he was wishing and hoping I had forgotten all his original idiotic legal opinion. The bull shirt-ery was your brain child counselor. Do you have any integrity to explain how an uneducated slob like myself got it right while a highly educated and experienced lawyer like yourself got it all wrong?
I shoulda taken your bet....
So the chance of approval was 100% ????
Your only hope is for MD lax to come forward to bail your ass out.
You should have taken the bet.
The part that ggait was right about was that the judge didn't reject the deal because it was too lenient in punishment (which had been the argument on here) but rather because there was a constitutional issue in the judge's view as to who should decide whether Hunter had violated probation (did drugs); DOJ or judge. The other issue, how much immunity Hunter was getting, was resolved quickly...but neither defense or prosecution had a viable answer on the constitutional question.
That said, the deal did have the benefit from Hunter's perspective of sheltering him from a future MAGA DOJ bent on "retribution". The defense trusts the judge but not a future MAGA DOJ.
IMO, the deal that they will end up cutting is going to have to have Hunter take his chances with that possibility. The reality is that a MAGA world won't be bound by whatever legal strictures might be placed now, as it's pretty darn clear that the hard core, and most importantly, Trump himself have zero regard for truth and rule of law. So, "retribution" needn't really have legal basis. So, don't sweat that now. And stay off drugs...
The other way to go on all this is to take it to trial in DC and/or CA and let the chips fall where they may; it's entirely possible that Hunter gets more leniency in that process than in a plea deal. The gun charge probably gets thrown out entirely and having paid the back taxes, difficult to get a jury or a judge levy tough penalties beyond those that had been negotiated.
As I don't think there's sufficient evidence of crimes beyond what Hunter has publicly admitted to, it would be a huge risk for a prosecutor to charge more and then face likely losing. And so far, there's been no inkling that there's actually a further crime, much less hard proof that can stand up in court, coming out of those actually positioned to know, FBI, DOJ, SC...just a lot right wing scandal smearing efforts.
Well but ggait was crystal clear 100% that the judge would never turn down the deal.. You went off on a bit of a tangent that you seldom do but HBs lawyers failed at pulling a fast one over on this judge. I'm guessing that didn't sit very well with her. That future amnesty deal hidden in the fine print, may have been a bridge 2 far for this judge? If only she hadn't read the actual agreement from cover to cover.
I think you're reading/listening to people telling you that it must have been Hunter's or his lawyers' fault, rather than exactly what I described...I don't think the lawyers, either side, tried to pull anything at all, other than putting the responsibility on the judge versus a future MAGA DOJ. I don't think that's hard to understand and why both sides were willing. I do wonder how the language (written by prosecutors) that Hunter's lawyers thought covered all prior acts wasn't what they thought...that was Weiss' team that wrote that language, not the defense, so if anyone was trying to pull a fast one it was Weiss' team...personally, I think they intended it to cover everything but had cold feet in the midst of all the political hoopla and decided at the last minute that they wanted to preserve the off chance that if they found more they could follow up, or more importantly could say so to the political folks on the right. I don't think they thought it was actually important to preserve as they didn't find anything after 5 years of investigating, but the hoopla was heavy...but that part's speculation. That this blew up only because of the constitutional question of the judicial branch being asked to do an executive branch process seems entirely as reported.
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:10 pm
House Subpoenas (drumroll) anyone other than the people in charge who can clear this mess up in five seconds.
Shocker.
After reading more about the plea "accidental implosion", it's obvious that Weiss (R) colluded with Barr to slow this now 6 year long investigation into the 2024 election. We're almost there.
The in just a few months, these offenses of Hunter happened a full freaking decade ago. Weiss is going so slow in his attempt to cripple Biden 2024, he's letting the statute of limitations run out.
...sure, you're not defending Hunter. Poor Hunter, he's such a victim. Nobody tried to help him out of the endless string of jams he created for himself. Did you buy his book, or one of his elementary school paintings ? The Biden team managed to keep Hunter off the menu for over 2 years while the SOLs run.
The House is calling to hear from 4 other agents at the Oct 2022 mtg to verify or contradict the key to the WB's allegations.
They were ear witnesses to what Weiss said about his autonomy & directions from above.
What are you afraid of finding out ? Maybe they'll support Weiss, undercut the WB's, & the whole issue will die away.
Rettig did act. The IRS referred the case to the DoJ.
https://optimataxrelief.com/when-does-t ... be%20filed. The IRS typically does not pursue criminal charges unless you exhibit a pattern of intentionally breaking tax laws. This can include non-filing, filing fraudulent returns, falsifying information on your return, not paying taxes, and more. The IRS statute of limitations could trigger charges to be filed. Currently, the IRS has six years from the return filing date to pursue criminal charges that related to failing to file and underreporting income.
If the IRS decides to open a case against you, they will refer it to the Department of Justice for prosecution. In order for the IRS to be successful in convicting someone for tax evasion, they must prove without reasonable doubt that the accused taxpayer (or nonpayer) acted in a deliberate and willful manner to avoid paying their taxes.
I remain astonished that the CA & DC US Attys did not allow Weiss to file charges for at least failure to file before the SOL ran for 2014 & 2015 tax years.
From the CBS report above : "Because it had been denied, he informed us the government would not be bringing charges against Hunter Biden for the 2014-2015 tax years, for which the statute of limitations were set to expire in one month. All of our years of effort getting to the bottom of the massive amounts of foreign money Hunter Biden received from Burisma and others during that period would be for nothing."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics ... index.html The IRS whistleblowers said the recommendation called for Hunter Biden to be charged with tax evasion and filing a false tax return – both felonies – for 2014, 2018 and 2019. The IRS also recommended that prosecutors charge him with failing to pay taxes on time, a misdemeanor, for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, according to the transcripts...
Great; so call Rettig and put him under oath in the House to explain the case they referred and what it did and did not include.
Why don't they call him?
One very plausible answer is that the facts of the case they referred is what Hunter was negotiating and tried to plead to... and there was no case involving Joe. Uhhh ohhh, that doesn't fit the scandal narrative...
Irrelevant smoke screen. It doesn't matter what Rettig thought anymore than what his WB agents thought. It's not their call. It's the DoJ's call.
...& whether or not they thought they had anything on Pop Joe is irrelevant to let the SOL run on HB's failure to file & pay for 2014-15.
Why did Weiss stop negotiating with the defense to extend the SOL ?
Nope, the right wing theory is that the IRS had clear evidence of lots of crimes...and Rettig would know what that was, including whether it involved Joe.
The House doesn't want to hear it.
On the SOL's, we'll find out when the Special Counsel does his report, but it looks to me like they had a plea agreement in the works and didn't need to prosecute everything...but we'll see. The point is that the IRS under Rettig are the ones crying foul.
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 6:40 pm
Cradle — how many dollars you want to bet the trump judge approves hunters plea deal in July?
I’ll give you 5/1 odds. Is
Which is a suckers bet. Since the chance of approval is 100%.
The bull shirt-ery on this is so ridiculous.
I had to go back and dig this up for ggaits benefit. Since counselor Ggait was wrong during our last discussion. I'm betting he was wishing and hoping I had forgotten all his original idiotic legal opinion. The bull shirt-ery was your brain child counselor. Do you have any integrity to explain how an uneducated slob like myself got it right while a highly educated and experienced lawyer like yourself got it all wrong?
I shoulda taken your bet....
So the chance of approval was 100% ????
Your only hope is for MD lax to come forward to bail your ass out.
You should have taken the bet.
The part that ggait was right about was that the judge didn't reject the deal because it was too lenient in punishment (which had been the argument on here) but rather because there was a constitutional issue in the judge's view as to who should decide whether Hunter had violated probation (did drugs); DOJ or judge. The other issue, how much immunity Hunter was getting, was resolved quickly...but neither defense or prosecution had a viable answer on the constitutional question.
That said, the deal did have the benefit from Hunter's perspective of sheltering him from a future MAGA DOJ bent on "retribution". The defense trusts the judge but not a future MAGA DOJ.
IMO, the deal that they will end up cutting is going to have to have Hunter take his chances with that possibility. The reality is that a MAGA world won't be bound by whatever legal strictures might be placed now, as it's pretty darn clear that the hard core, and most importantly, Trump himself have zero regard for truth and rule of law. So, "retribution" needn't really have legal basis. So, don't sweat that now. And stay off drugs...
The other way to go on all this is to take it to trial in DC and/or CA and let the chips fall where they may; it's entirely possible that Hunter gets more leniency in that process than in a plea deal. The gun charge probably gets thrown out entirely and having paid the back taxes, difficult to get a jury or a judge levy tough penalties beyond those that had been negotiated.
As I don't think there's sufficient evidence of crimes beyond what Hunter has publicly admitted to, it would be a huge risk for a prosecutor to charge more and then face likely losing. And so far, there's been no inkling that there's actually a further crime, much less hard proof that can stand up in court, coming out of those actually positioned to know, FBI, DOJ, SC...just a lot right wing scandal smearing efforts.
Well but ggait was crystal clear 100% that the judge would never turn down the deal.. You went off on a bit of a tangent that you seldom do but HBs lawyers failed at pulling a fast one over on this judge. I'm guessing that didn't sit very well with her. That future amnesty deal hidden in the fine print, may have been a bridge 2 far for this judge? If only she hadn't read the actual agreement from cover to cover.
I think you're reading/listening to people telling you that it must have been Hunter's or his lawyers' fault, rather than exactly what I described...I don't think the lawyers, either side, tried to pull anything at all, other than putting the responsibility on the judge versus a future MAGA DOJ. I don't think that's hard to understand and why both sides were willing. I do wonder how the language (written by prosecutors) that Hunter's lawyers thought covered all prior acts wasn't what they thought...that was Weiss' team that wrote that language, not the defense, so if anyone was trying to pull a fast one it was Weiss' team...personally, I think they intended it to cover everything but had cold feet in the midst of all the political hoopla and decided at the last minute that they wanted to preserve the off chance that if they found more they could follow up, or more importantly could say so to the political folks on the right. I don't think they thought it was actually important to preserve as they didn't find anything after 5 years of investigating, but the hoopla was heavy...but that part's speculation. That this blew up only because of the constitutional question of the judicial branch being asked to do an executive branch process seems entirely as reported.
So your memory fails you? That immunity from future prosecution was snuck into the deal by the prosecution?
Re: Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2023 3:42 pm
by ggait
Cray -- you should have taken the bet.
Stats are that plea bargains are approved by the judge 98-99% of the time. Proof that black swans do happen.*
And of course, the judge in no way questioned or disapproved of the substance of the deal.
She had neutral technical questions over: (i) did the two sides really agree or not on the immunity scope and (ii) is the gun law that HB was agreeing to divert even a law any more? Since recent court decisions elsewhere suggest that said law is unconstitutional.
*For example, it is certainly possible that Cray would just one time post something that isn't completely cray cray. Possible -- but just not very likely.
Re: Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2023 4:03 pm
by cradleandshoot
ggait wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 3:42 pm
Cray -- you should have taken the bet.
Stats are that plea bargains are approved by the judge 98-99% of the time. Proof that black swans do happen.*
And of course, the judge in no way questioned or disapproved of the substance of the deal.
She had neutral technical questions over: (i) did the two sides really agree or not on the immunity scope and (ii) is the gun law that HB was agreeing to divert even a law any more? Since recent court decisions elsewhere suggest that said law is unconstitutional.
*For example, it is certainly possible that Cray would just one time post something that isn't completely cray cray. Possible -- but just not very likely.
Your the legal eagle who excoriated me saying the judge would do what she did. Your credibility on this issue is shot to hell gee gee.
Re: Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2023 4:19 pm
by cradleandshoot
ggait wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 3:42 pm
Cray -- you should have taken the bet.
Stats are that plea bargains are approved by the judge 98-99% of the time. Proof that black swans do happen.*
And of course, the judge in no way questioned or disapproved of the substance of the deal.
She had neutral technical questions over: (i) did the two sides really agree or not on the immunity scope and (ii) is the gun law that HB was agreeing to divert even a law any more? Since recent court decisions elsewhere suggest that said law is unconstitutional.
*For example, it is certainly possible that Cray would just one time post something that isn't completely cray cray. Possible -- but just not very likely.
She had " natural technical questions" indeed. In no surprise at all HBs legal team is as sleazy as their client. HBs lawyers tried to bullchit her and she didn't fall for it.
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 6:40 pm
Cradle — how many dollars you want to bet the trump judge approves hunters plea deal in July?
I’ll give you 5/1 odds. Is
Which is a suckers bet. Since the chance of approval is 100%.
The bull shirt-ery on this is so ridiculous.
I had to go back and dig this up for ggaits benefit. Since counselor Ggait was wrong during our last discussion. I'm betting he was wishing and hoping I had forgotten all his original idiotic legal opinion. The bull shirt-ery was your brain child counselor. Do you have any integrity to explain how an uneducated slob like myself got it right while a highly educated and experienced lawyer like yourself got it all wrong?
I shoulda taken your bet....
So the chance of approval was 100% ????
Your only hope is for MD lax to come forward to bail your ass out.
You should have taken the bet.
The part that ggait was right about was that the judge didn't reject the deal because it was too lenient in punishment (which had been the argument on here) but rather because there was a constitutional issue in the judge's view as to who should decide whether Hunter had violated probation (did drugs); DOJ or judge. The other issue, how much immunity Hunter was getting, was resolved quickly...but neither defense or prosecution had a viable answer on the constitutional question.
That said, the deal did have the benefit from Hunter's perspective of sheltering him from a future MAGA DOJ bent on "retribution". The defense trusts the judge but not a future MAGA DOJ.
IMO, the deal that they will end up cutting is going to have to have Hunter take his chances with that possibility. The reality is that a MAGA world won't be bound by whatever legal strictures might be placed now, as it's pretty darn clear that the hard core, and most importantly, Trump himself have zero regard for truth and rule of law. So, "retribution" needn't really have legal basis. So, don't sweat that now. And stay off drugs...
The other way to go on all this is to take it to trial in DC and/or CA and let the chips fall where they may; it's entirely possible that Hunter gets more leniency in that process than in a plea deal. The gun charge probably gets thrown out entirely and having paid the back taxes, difficult to get a jury or a judge levy tough penalties beyond those that had been negotiated.
As I don't think there's sufficient evidence of crimes beyond what Hunter has publicly admitted to, it would be a huge risk for a prosecutor to charge more and then face likely losing. And so far, there's been no inkling that there's actually a further crime, much less hard proof that can stand up in court, coming out of those actually positioned to know, FBI, DOJ, SC...just a lot right wing scandal smearing efforts.
Well but ggait was crystal clear 100% that the judge would never turn down the deal.. You went off on a bit of a tangent that you seldom do but HBs lawyers failed at pulling a fast one over on this judge. I'm guessing that didn't sit very well with her. That future amnesty deal hidden in the fine print, may have been a bridge 2 far for this judge? If only she hadn't read the actual agreement from cover to cover.
I think you're reading/listening to people telling you that it must have been Hunter's or his lawyers' fault, rather than exactly what I described...I don't think the lawyers, either side, tried to pull anything at all, other than putting the responsibility on the judge versus a future MAGA DOJ. I don't think that's hard to understand and why both sides were willing. I do wonder how the language (written by prosecutors) that Hunter's lawyers thought covered all prior acts wasn't what they thought...that was Weiss' team that wrote that language, not the defense, so if anyone was trying to pull a fast one it was Weiss' team...personally, I think they intended it to cover everything but had cold feet in the midst of all the political hoopla and decided at the last minute that they wanted to preserve the off chance that if they found more they could follow up, or more importantly could say so to the political folks on the right. I don't think they thought it was actually important to preserve as they didn't find anything after 5 years of investigating, but the hoopla was heavy...but that part's speculation. That this blew up only because of the constitutional question of the judicial branch being asked to do an executive branch process seems entirely as reported.
So your memory fails you? That immunity from future prosecution was snuck into the deal by the prosecution?
The prosecution writes the text, cradle. They negotiate and the prosecution puts it in writing what they agree to. The defense understood the plea to end all further risk of prosecution from past activities, which is usually the result of a plea. Unless it's spelled out otherwise. Apparently, the prosecution either changed their minds under political pressure, or they thought the language was ambiguous enough that they could always come back for another bite at the apple if something egregious came up...they didn't expect that to happen, but had enough wiggle room in what they wrote...the judge pressed to make sure the defense understood there was still some wiggle room and that freaked out the defense, understandably IMO.
The defense is who stepped back when the prosecution said that it didn't cover all immunity...it was the prosecutors' language.
But the defense then agreed to it. Where this blew up was the concern about who was going to make the call as to whether Hunter violates probation in the future...a vindictive MAGA GOP making the call is way, way too easy from their perspective to say Hunter has violated and deal off...put these two elements together and the defense is understandably very antsy about what a future DOJ might do...they weren't so concerned with Weiss under the Biden DOJ as nothing they'd seen was MAGA retribution driven...
ggait wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 3:42 pm
Cray -- you should have taken the bet.
Stats are that plea bargains are approved by the judge 98-99% of the time. Proof that black swans do happen.*
And of course, the judge in no way questioned or disapproved of the substance of the deal.
She had neutral technical questions over: (i) did the two sides really agree or not on the immunity scope and (ii) is the gun law that HB was agreeing to divert even a law any more? Since recent court decisions elsewhere suggest that said law is unconstitutional.
*For example, it is certainly possible that Cray would just one time post something that isn't completely cray cray. Possible -- but just not very likely.
She had " natural technical questions" indeed. In no surprise at all HBs legal team is as sleazy as their client. HBs lawyers tried to bullchit her and she didn't fall for it.
why would you write something like that with zero basis?
seriously, that's a really dumb take, ignoring all reality...I'm sure there are right wing nut jobs out there peddling such, but why repeat it when you have no idea what you're talking about?
ggait wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 3:42 pm
Cray -- you should have taken the bet.
Stats are that plea bargains are approved by the judge 98-99% of the time. Proof that black swans do happen.*
And of course, the judge in no way questioned or disapproved of the substance of the deal.
She had neutral technical questions over: (i) did the two sides really agree or not on the immunity scope and (ii) is the gun law that HB was agreeing to divert even a law any more? Since recent court decisions elsewhere suggest that said law is unconstitutional.
*For example, it is certainly possible that Cray would just one time post something that isn't completely cray cray. Possible -- but just not very likely.
She had " natural technical questions" indeed. In no surprise at all HBs legal team is as sleazy as their client. HBs lawyers tried to bullchit her and she didn't fall for it.
why would you write something like that with zero basis?
seriously, that's a really dumb take, ignoring all reality...I'm sure there are right wing nut jobs out there peddling such, but why repeat it when you have no idea what you're talking about?
Maybe I'm getting more like you? You post really dumb opinions all the time. Matter of fact I can use use your responses as a gauge to verify my opinions. You haven't figured that out yet? IMO hunters lawyers are as sleazy as he is. That is my opinion and it is not predicated on your agreeing or disagreeing.
ggait wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 3:42 pm
Cray -- you should have taken the bet.
Stats are that plea bargains are approved by the judge 98-99% of the time. Proof that black swans do happen.*
And of course, the judge in no way questioned or disapproved of the substance of the deal.
She had neutral technical questions over: (i) did the two sides really agree or not on the immunity scope and (ii) is the gun law that HB was agreeing to divert even a law any more? Since recent court decisions elsewhere suggest that said law is unconstitutional.
*For example, it is certainly possible that Cray would just one time post something that isn't completely cray cray. Possible -- but just not very likely.
She had " natural technical questions" indeed. In no surprise at all HBs legal team is as sleazy as their client. HBs lawyers tried to bullchit her and she didn't fall for it.
why would you write something like that with zero basis?
seriously, that's a really dumb take, ignoring all reality...I'm sure there are right wing nut jobs out there peddling such, but why repeat it when you have no idea what you're talking about?
Maybe I'm getting more like you? You post really dumb opinions all the time. Matter of fact I can use use your responses as a gauge to verify my opinions. You haven't figured that out yet? IMO hunters lawyers are as sleazy as he is. That is my opinion and it is not predicated on your agreeing or disagreeing.
nor is your opinion predicated on facts or logic.
Just cantankerous right wing claptrap.
As you know, I think Hunter made some very bad life choices, including a number I'd agree were "sleazy". Dunno if I'd write someone off permanently much less make negative assumptions about very well respected lawyers. They need to come back time and again to the court and a bad reputation is quick to be achieved if earned. Far as I can tell, no reason to think they're not straight shooters. I realize you don't like ALL attorneys and All politicians and All...whatever...
...sure, you're not defending Hunter. Poor Hunter, he's such a victim. Nobody tried to help him out of the endless string of jams he created for himself. Did you buy his book, or one of his elementary school paintings ? The Biden team managed to keep Hunter off the menu for over 2 years while the SOLs run.
The bull shirt-ery was your brain child counselor. Do you have any integrity to explain how an uneducated slob like myself got it right while a highly educated and experienced lawyer like yourself got it all wrong? 