Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

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


Paul158

Recommended Posts

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.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!  😉

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Offthemat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Plasmodium
added additional
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  😯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area



  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...