Write Glenn Thrush and Chris Cameron, in "How Hunter Biden’s Judge Came to Have Doubts on the Deal/In just a few hours, Judge Maryellen Noreika exposes a gulf in understanding between the president’s son and prosecutors on an agreement they had spent weeks hashing out" (NYT).
When the judge asked Leo Weiss, a lead prosecutor in the case, if the investigation was still going on, he answered: 'yes.' When she asked him, hypothetically, if the deal would preclude an investigation into possible violation of laws regulating foreign lobbying by Mr. Biden connected with his consulting and legal work, he replied: 'no.' Mr. Biden then told the judge he could not agree to any deal that did not offer him broad immunity, and [Biden's lawyer Chris] Clark popped up angrily to declare the deal was now 'null and void.'...After an official recess was declared, Mr. Clark agreed to the narrower terms, and declared his previous statements 'inartful.' But Judge Noreika appeared unconvinced." She turned her attention to the fine print of the deal that had been struck on the gun offense, requiring Mr. Biden participate in a two-year diversion program that prohibited him from using drugs or owning a firearm. She objected strenuously to how a violation of its terms would be handled.
Typically, the Justice Department could independently verify such a breach and bring charges. But Mr. Biden’s team, concerned that the department might abuse that authority if former President Donald J. Trump was re-elected, successfully lobbied to give that power to Judge Noreika herself, arguing that she would be a more neutral arbiter. But Judge Noreika suggested that such an arrangement could be unconstitutional because it might give her prosecutorial powers, which were vested in the executive branch by the Constitution."
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
"The judge, appointed by former President Donald J. Trump in 2017, questioned why prosecutors had written it in a way that gave her no legal authority to reject it."
What does this mean?
"/In just a few hours, Judge Maryellen Noreika exposes a gulf in understanding between the president’s son and prosecutors on an agreement they had spent weeks hashing out" (NYT)."
Oh, bullshit. Prosecutors just weren't willing to say in public what they had agreed to (willing, I bet) in private. As others have noted, the DOJ and Biden's lawyers are on the same team.
"requiring Mr. Biden participate in a two-year diversion program that prohibited him from using drugs or owning a firearm."
I would like to be the first to say - certainly not the last - that no matter what punishment he receives, or where he receives it...were it in solitary on the dark side of the moon...Hunter Biden might be prohibited from using drugs, but Hunted Biden will never not use drugs. Ever.
I am willing to extend the miracle of recovery to everyone. Everyone except Hunter.
The Bidens want to continue to collect bribes with no consequences? This is my shocked face- not.
Biden doesn’t want to look bad by pardoning Hunter and the DOJ doesn’t want to look bad by just dripping the charges and just closing the investigation and dismissing the charges.
Instead they want to force the judge to sign off on the deal (unconditional) and to prosecute Hunter for any breaches of the deal (unconstitutional).
Not her job to bail out these shitheels from their political problems.
The Judge: I'm not a potted plant.
But Judge Noreika suggested that such an arrangement could be unconstitutional because it might give her prosecutorial powers, which were vested in the executive branch by the Constitution.
It would also have painted a target on her. (At this point I'm discounting absolutely nothing.)
Bummer of a birthmark, Hal.
The Bidens are MASSIVE crooks! And maybe traitors to.
The plea should only be about the gun charge and IRS $$ charge and NO IMMUNITY!!!
How is it possible for a high powered DOJ prosecutor and a top of the line defense lawyer, both handling the highest profile plea agreement of their career, to not have the same understanding of the terms of the plea deal? And how can you grant blanket immunity with no duty to cooperate in investigations when the investigation is still ongoing? Someone at the DOJ is responsible for this disgrace, and I doubt that the DOJ lawyer who appeared in court today is the one to blame.
"an investigation into possible violation of laws regulating foreign lobbying by Mr. Biden connected with his consulting and legal work"
Hey, NYT: how closely did YOU investigate that "possible violation"? What "legal work" did Hunter ever do? Why was it worth millions to foreigners?
Judge Noreika must have been appointed on her merits. This would never have happened under an equity hire.
Muh norms!
I was impressed that the NYT seemed to have something positive to say about a Trump-appointed judge, so I searched Google for more information. I was shocked that as I began typing her name, Google's first auto-completion suggestion was "Maryellen Noreika family", not simply "Maryellen Noreika", which showed up as the second suggestion. That suggests to me that the Democrat activists are frantically searching for dirt on the judge. Creepy.
Given the angry reaction of Team Biden, I wonder if it's more likely that this 'gulf in understanding' is precisely the most important part of the plea deal, and that the ample room for future re-interpretation is what the aim of the Biden team was in the first place. 'It was all just a misunderstanding' they were planning to say, while the Banana Republicans solemnly vowed to hold up their end of their original understanding, left in the dirt at the side of the road, in other words.
Does the New York Times mention that Biden's legal team lied to the judge? Or did that never happen. If it didn't happen, there sure are a lot of people who believe that it did. MTG tweeted that his lawyers lied to the court. Is the New York Times going to prove she's a liar? Or will they not see fit to print what seems to be a pretty pertinent fact in this case.
https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1684238124472229888
Also, Hunter's lawyer was recently photographed taking a hit off of a bong on his balcony while Hunter was at his home. Is this kind of complete contempt for the justice system unimportant to the New York Times? Amazing how incurious the NYT is. Maybe this is more of Hunter trying to get caught. Crying out for help. Being abused by his father.
The judge, of course, is correct. The unlawful part of the deal was blanket and perpetual immunity for current and future federal crimes. Why investigate Hunter for FARA violations when he’s immune? That’s the scam.
Hooray for the judge!
Joe will pardon Hunter before he leaves office. Heck, he should have a pardon in his desk if he has a stroke tomorrow.
Best case? Joe rats out Joe on the bribery business in order to avoid hard times.
What a family of criminals!
No deal. Good. Let’s have a trial.
Add this to the list of irregularities:
Judge Demands Explanation From Hunter Biden's Lawyers Over Alleged Lie to Court Clerk
"Lawyers for Hunter Biden may face legal sanctions for allegedly misrepresenting themselves to the court clerk in order to have information related to IRS whistleblowers removed from the case record.
A member of Mr. Biden’s legal team is accused of falsely identifying herself while requesting the removal of amicus materials. According to the court clerk, Jessica Bengels, a New York-based Latham and Watkins litigation services director, contacted the clerk and asked to have the information kept confidential.
In a July 25 letter, Theodore Kittila informed Delaware Judge Maryellen Noreika of the alleged trick, and that the clerk’s office had “advised that someone contacted the court representing that they worked with my office and that they were asking the court to remove this from the docket.”
Judge Noreika gave Mr. Biden’s lawyers until 9 p.m. on Tuesday to provide an explanation from their perspective.
“The Court has discussed the matter with the relevant individuals in the Clerk’s Office and has been informed that the caller, Ms. Jessica Bengels, represented that she worked with Mr. Kittila and requested the amicus materials be taken down because they contained sensitive grand jury, taxpayer and social security information,” the order reads.
Judge Noreika noted that “the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the clerk’s office to remove the amicus materials from the docket.”
The alleged deceitful tactic was an attempt to remove IRS whistleblower testimony about the Department of Justice’s alleged inadequate criminal investigation into Mr. Biden’s tax-related offenses from the court’s official records.
The court has temporarily placed the document under seal until the close of business on Wednesday “to afford Defendant the opportunity to try to make the requisite showing.”
“Should Defendant fail to make that showing, the document will be unsealed in its entirety,” the order reads."
Garfinkle and company tried to slip a fast one past the judge and the House committee. They got caught at it. Hunter needs to stand trial in public.
Do they have to be THIS obvious about it?
"What the hell is the point of immunity if it doesn't cover murder?
-Floyd Gerhart
John Henry
It seems everyone was in on The Fix except the judge and the American people.
Interesting the Team Biden is concerned about the politicization of the judiciary.
In the poker world we call that a tell.
so who owns judge? Hunter Biden's or Trump's
or recently emancipated herself!
More:
"Mr. Kittila in an email dated July 25.
In response, Mr. Kittila advised Mr. Clark to “take a step back from your statements.”
“The clerk’s office advised that it was represented to her that the request was being made by my firm. We will be advising Judge Noreika of this improper conduct,” Mr. Kittila wrote.
In reply, Mr. Clark wrote, “I stand by all of my statements and I hope you have an affidavit from the clerk in support of yours.”
The Epoch Times contacted Hunter Biden’s attorney for comment.
A combined Initial Appearance and Plea Hearing for Mr. Biden is set for Wednesday at 10 a.m. before Judge Noreika. Top Republicans are seeking to get the plea deal, which they consider lenient, tossed."
She'd never make it as a FISA judge, that's for sure. Doesn't she understand that rubber-stamping whatever the Organs present is the highest form of jurisprudence?
I'll just go ahead and say it for future reference: Judge Noreika did not commit suicide.
Biden's lawyer Chris Clark is married to Liz Cheney. He looks just as you might imagine.
The second funniest phrase in the article by Thrush and Cameron is "The judge, appointed by former President Donald J. Trump . . . ."
The funniest is "the two sides."
It seems bizarre that Biden's counsel would go forward with a plea that didn't resolve the outstanding matters under investigation. I wonder whether one of the wrinkles here might be that the investigation is being kept technically "open" so that DOJ can object to Congressional scrutiny (and withhold witnesses, etc.) on the grounds that it constitutes interference in an ongoing investigation, but nothing's actually happening to move the investigation forward. I wonder if tolling agreements have been executed?
I sometimes wonder whether President Biden wants a second term not just because of his ego and inability to acknowledge he's lost a step, but because he needs to be President to protect his son from the consequences of his actions, at least until the statute of limitations runs out. But this bit of business trying to replace DOJ with the judge suggests that maybe it's not the statute of limitations, but rather enforcement of the terms of the plea (e.g. can Hunter really stay off drugs? Who did that cocaine belong to?). The President can cut this off with a pardon, however humiliating that might be, and if he loses I expect he'll just pardon his son and any other family members who may have broken federal law. The father has already been willing to suffer a bit of public embarrassment to protect his remaining son, after all.
Absolutely nonplussed.
DOJ is incompetent and lenient when dealing with Democrats.
With their political opponents they kick the doors with 29 armed agents at 6:00 am with CNN in tow of a 67 year old charged with a process crime. They lie about General Flynn, threaten his family in true cartel fashion and the democrat judge refuses to take a plea bargain.
The DOJ of the United States is CORRUPT. CORRUPT.
The nice thing about this is that I get to learn something of law, just a little bit. Judge Noreika seems very astute. The Prosecutor and the defending counsel seem collusive and stupid.
Hunter should have hired Rumpole of the Bailey, except that Rumpole was only for the good hearted guilty.
We may rejoice in our assumption that Judge Noreika has rescued the United States from banana republic status by rejecting that obviously corrupt plea deal. However, Merrick Garland is still in command of the prosecution. His lickspittle flunkey, Leo Weiss, will obediently bungle the Government's case, evidence will be lost, and witnesses will contradict their testimony. Chris Clark will move for dismissal and Judge Noreika, faced with no coherent argument from the United States, will be compelled to dismiss all charges with prejudice.
DOJ is incompetent and lenient when dealing with Democrats.
With their political opponents they kick the doors with 29 armed agents at 6:00 am with CNN in tow of a 67 year old charged with a process crime. They lie about General Flynn, threaten his family in true cartel fashion and the democrat judge refuses to take a plea bargain.
The DOJ of the United States is CORRUPT. CORRUPT.
I am learning a lot of Con Law here, way outside of the classroom. Kinda cool.
Also getting some great examples of "irony," a technical term meaning "when Fate bites you in the a**." Here both sides had it all figured out, and then the judge had the temerity to mess up the play and ask why she was the chump: being used as a tool to whitewash Hunter. Funny thing: she seems to care about her name, and she's not going to put it on a corrupt bargain like this: not to endorse the absurdly broad scope of immunity it gives, and not to be roped into enforcing Hunter's compliance.
Pass the popcorn.
Trump 43
Biden 38
Registered voters, actual likely voters is probably a lot worse.
"But if we nominate somebody other than Trump, the Democrats promise not to cheat or to lie about whoever it is, or to use all of their press outlets, TV shows, and movies to paint the person as a monster."
In other words the lawyers on both sides were unprepared to explain and defend the deal. Refreshing to have a judge ask what the deal actually is.
The judge should be put on an Arkancide watch.
The judge should be put on an Arkancide watch.
The judge should be put on an Arkancide watch.
Analysis from a former Federal Prosecutor:
That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually MUCH broader than just the gun charge. If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented DOJ from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere.
So they put the facts in the plea agreement, but put their non-prosecution agreement in the pretrial diversion agreement, effectively hiding the full scope of what DOJ was offering and Hunter was obtaining through these proceedings.
Read the whole thing: https://twitter.com/willscharf/status/1684331594864025602
Old and Slow:
“Biden's lawyer Chris Clark is married to Liz Cheney.”
Close but not exactly:
Philip Perry, who is married to former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, is a partner at the same law firm representing President Joe Biden’s scandal-ridden son, Hunter.
I’m getting the distinct whiff of flop sweat as this story begins to get away from the Left.
If you recall, no one cared about Monica Lewinsky for quite a while. Until suddenly they did.
We heard a lot of the same kind of scornful harrumphing from the media and political elite back then, when they would even deign to comment on such an obvious non-story. Until suddenly we didn’t.
If I were Trump, I think my strategy with this would be to wait until it’s a story that even the View and Access Hollywood and the late night comedians can no longer ignore. When it reaches a fever pitch, and everyone is made well aware of just how young Biden has been coddled and cushioned from the consequences of his actions, he should make a targeted 2 minute commercial beginning with sound bites from Biden back in the days of the 94 Crime Bill. Split screen it with Hunter smoking crack and toying with his pistol. Then Trump comes on with a message directly to the black and white working class. “How many of you have a loved one who got busted for drugs or gun possession under Biden’s crime bill? How many of you failed to declare income and got prosecuted for tax evasion by the IRS? Did you have a tight little circle of friends in government who worked hard to give you a sweetheart deal and let you skate with a wink and a nod and a bullshit misdemeanor and no time behind bars? Or did you serve your time and pay your dues? I know what it’s like to be on the wrong side of the cozy little insiders’ club, and so do you. Help me defeat them so everybody in America has to live under the same laws, no matter how rich or powerful.”
Blogger tim in vermont said...
I don't agree with you many times, but have at it. OK?
"Given the angry reaction of Team Biden, I wonder if it's more likely that this 'gulf in understanding' is precisely the most important part of the plea deal, and that the ample room for future re-interpretation is what the aim of the Biden team was in the first place."
Aggie at 6:10
Yup. That is the game. Often played in DC as sue and settle. My only question is how incompetent or crooked are the prosecutors. I'd say pretty crooked. The judge was supposed to approve this without reading it, or without reading it carefully. Then the strange provision that no court approval was needed would kick in, leaving the prosecutors to say that it was the deal they got and blaming everything on the judge, whose approval was no longer relevant. The strange maneuver whereby the person from Hunter's law firm got the Oversight Committee's amicus brief removed from the docket was a new one to me. Of course they are saying it was a miscommunication. The prosecutors would not care about this (it wasn't their filing)--only the judge would. The prosecutors and the defense both want to bury the trouble-making IRS whistleblowers' testimony in the deep blue sea.
This little episode is setting new records in cynical behavior by both the US Attorney's office in Delaware and the defendant's counsel. They all want it to go away, and if they make the judge look bad, they don't care. They are playing a dangerous game. Judge John Sirica blew up Watergate by playing it tough with Team Nixon.
Hassayamper @ 8:50: You must be new here. You seem to think that brilliant moves (and I think your proposal about "If I were Trump..." is brilliant) have a chance of seeing daylight. I hope they do. I no longer expect they will.
That said, Judge Norieka is a gem. Not only does she smell rats, she seems to know how to mark, track and crush them.
Well, one can hope.
First things first:
"Judge Maryellen Noreika exposes a gulf in understanding between the president’s son and prosecutors on an agreement they had spent weeks hashing out"
This is just horseshit, pure and simple. The two sides were in complete and utter agreement about the terms of the deal- the problem arose because the prosecutors were asked in open court about those terms, and in the moment, weren't willing to admit that the terms of the agreement were corruptly benefitting Hunter Biden and his father. The plan all along was just have the judge sign it and then have the media bury the details. Hunter Biden skates on all it, doesn't have to cooperate with anyone, and the DoJ gets to claim a continuing investigation that allows them to stiff the House supoenae.
Bravo to the judge for forcing the prosecutors to stand up and take full ownership of this corrupt deal- they bailed out when push came to shove. That was one shit sandwich they weren't prepared to take a bite of today.
What happens now, I predict, is this- since Noreika is apparently a Trump-appointed judge, Joe Biden will now argue his son is being railroaded by a Trump supporter and will pardon him for everything. The other possibility is that a senior DoJ official, perhaps Ms. Monaco, will be willing to carry the bag of dogshit herself and reinstate the original agreement.
"So they put the facts in the plea agreement, but put their non-prosecution agreement in the pretrial diversion agreement, effectively hiding the full scope of what DOJ was offering and Hunter was obtaining through these proceedings."
Scharf's analysis makes the most sense so far. If correct, it shows the extent of the collusion. The "prosecution" wasn't trying to prosecute; they were trying to coddle Hunter.
So now the deal, in its original form, is off. Hunter is still likely have some liability under any new deal. But will he then still plead guilty?
Looking at the "unusual" arrangement, as the judge called it, does she have any way to call out and punish the shady collusion itself and the attempt to pull a fast one on the court?
the SHE Judge seems fair to me, and articulate
What strikes me about the Biden (and Trump) administrations is that they are so bloody incompetent regarding coherence and details. Every statement reveals obvious conflicts of interest, contradictions, nepotism, and hypocrisy. I take this as a combination of elderly leadership without inhibitions and with cognitive decline coupled with short attention spans resulting from excessive phone/social media use.
Trump was going to Make America Great Again. Biden wants a Global Green and Equity Reset. They think big, they think huge, they think about multi-trillion-dollar projects. Yet, they spend their time on petty Hunter graft, endless impeachments, and re-fighting old battles with Trump. Trump also wasted his time punching down and responding to silly nonsense like the crowd size at his inauguration.
Biden word salad. Harris word salad. Leaving pay-per-ride scooters randomly on the sidewalk for people to trip over. All the same. What was I saying? I forgot.
Hunter Biden's insistence that someone other than the DOJ be the referee for any disputes under the diversion scheme (by which he avoids 10 years imprisonment for the egregious firearms offense) just proves that this case calls for a special counsel.
Obviously, he doesn't fear the Biden/Garland DOJ; they've already proved themselves 'friendly' in prosecuting a Biden. He fears the possible future Trump 2.0 DOJ. So he wants a federal judge to referee the diversion plan, instead of the DOJ, just in case that mean old Mr. Trump gets elected in 2024 and starts threatening Hunter with some hard time.
That's because the DOJ has a conflict of interest in cases like his. His Daddy loves him, so he count on Daddy's DOJ to go easy on him (as they have so far). But that old meany Mr. Trump, that's another story. If that came to pass, Hunter wants to go crying to the Judge for mercy. Not what judges are for, says this judge.
Appointment of a special counsel should have happened at the front end of this case, but better late than never.
To have been a fly on the wall at the post-hearing de-briefing at Hunter's lawyers office! OMG!
Judge Noreika vs. The Executive Branch.
Round One to Noreika.
I had a trial in front of Judge Noreika last year. Whip smart and no BS.
"She objected strenuously" ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOnRHAyXqYY
(A Few Good Men)
“How is it possible for a high powered DOJ prosecutor and a top of the line defense lawyer, both handling the highest profile plea agreement of their career, to not have the same understanding of the terms of the plea deal? “
They had exactly the same understanding of the deal (wink wink nod nod). The problem was that the judge popped the balloon with a direct question that DOJ could only answer one way. And that was the end of that. She also very craftily put them on notice that if they came back with a new deal, it better be kosher.
There was no misunderstanding. They got caught trying to slip a BS agreement past her and couldn’t withstand even basic questions because it was a shady deal with no precedent. Unlike the spin over the last month claiming this was all routine and a standard plea it was irrevocably made plain that DOJ charging rules were not followed and this was a unique overly broad gift to the Bidens.
Just. Like. We. All. Said.
Boy Thrush sure is generous still giving the benefit to the DOJ. How does he maintain such studious naivety at his advanced age?
Eva Marie,
You mean Liz Cheney is married to a man? I thought she was a lesbian.
Does this mean sexual preference is not baked in a birth? That it is just a preference?
John Henry
Hassayamper: "I’m getting the distinct whiff of flop sweat as this story begins to get away from the Left."
It looks like the utterly corrupt plea bargain was constructed to kill off once and for all any investigative road to "the Big Guy": hence the hiding of immunity for Hunter's clear FARA violations and acting as the conduit for all the foreign cash that was then funneled to the Biden family members via all the shell companies...for which we have transaction documentation.
From Will Scharf:
"Based on conversations with people who were in the courtroom today, and my experience as a former federal prosecutor, I think I know the full story of what happened with the Hunter Biden plea agreement blow-up this morning.
Bear with me, because this is a little complicated:
Typically, if the Government is offering to a defendant that it will either drop charges or decline to bring new charges in return for the defendant's guilty plea, the plea is structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A). An agreement not to prosecute Hunter for FARA violations or other crimes in return for his pleading guilty to the tax misdemeanors, for example, would usually be a (c)(1)(A) plea. This is open, transparent, subject to judicial approval, etc.
In Hunter's case, according to what folks in the courtroom have told me, Hunter's plea was structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), which is usually just a plea in return for a joint sentencing recommendation only, and contained no information on its face about other potential charges, and contained no clear agreement by DOJ to forego prosecution of other charges.
Instead, DOJ and Hunter's lawyers effectively hid that part of the agreement in what was publicly described as a pretrial diversion agreement relating to a § 922(g)(3) gun charge against Hunter for being a drug user in possession of a firearm.
That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually MUCH broader than just the gun charge. If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented DOJ from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere.
So they put the facts in the plea agreement, but put their non-prosecution agreement in the pretrial diversion agreement, effectively hiding the full scope of what DOJ was offering and Hunter was obtaining through these proceedings. Hunter's upside from this deal was vast immunity from further prosecution if he finished a couple years of probation, and the public wouldn't be any the wiser because none of this was clearly stated on the face of the plea agreement, as would normally be the case.
Judge Noreika smelled a rat. She understood that the lawyers were trying to paint her into a corner and hide the ball. Instead, she backed DOJ and Hunter's lawyers into a corner by pulling all the details out into the open and then indicating that she wasn't going to approve a deal as broad as what she had discovered.
DOJ, attempting to save face and save its case, then stated on the record that the investigation into Hunter was ongoing and that Hunter remained susceptible to prosecution under FARA. Hunter's lawyers exploded. They clearly believed that FARA was covered under the deal, because as written, the pretrial diversion agreement language was broad enough to cover it. They blew up the deal, Hunter pled not guilty, and that's the current state of play.
And so here we are. Hunter's lawyers and DOJ are going to go off and try to pull together a new set of agreements, likely narrower, to satisfy Judge Noreika. Fortunately, I doubt if FARA or any charges related to Hunter's foreign influence peddling will be included, which leaves open the possibility of further investigations leading to further prosecutions."
Was Obama’s chef part of the message to the judge #NothingIsimpossible
Note--Notwithstanding Will Scharf's analysis cited above, this was a plea agreement under (c)(1)(C), which specifically provides that the plea agreement may specify that an attorney for the government will agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement).
This is key. If the judge had approved the plea agreement, she was bound by the terms of the sentencing arrangement and could not review or revise it later. This was the trap into which she refused to step. Also, the plea agreement put her in the quasi-prosecutorial position of monitoring Hunter's compliance with terms of the diversion arrangement on the gun charge.
This is a disgrace. I am further leaning towards crooked (as opposed to incompetent) with respect to the prosecutors.
John Henry said “You mean Liz Cheney is married to a man? I thought she was a lesbian.”
No, it’s her sister, Mary, who is a lesbian.
The judge pantsed the prosecutors who were engaging in unethical conduct. The terms should have been fully disclosed in the plea agreement, not buried in the diversion agreement.
This kind of sleaze from the DOJ is no longer unbelievable.
Good for the judge.
A quick spin around the internet suggests that the media/democrat/DOJ cabal is doing a great job of taking the Biden plea agreement out of the spotlight.
How do they make stories disappear so quickly?
Prosecutors bought off by big money are happy to enter into agreed guilty plea agreements to made up false conspiracy charges involving the actual target to create res judicata on the conspiracy. Slick work. All you need is a corrupt judge owned by the machine who goes along. This time the judge rebelled.
what is difference between plea agreement and consent decrees?
relative power structure/ammunition for 'punitions' ?
She also very craftily put them on notice that if they came back with a new deal, it better be kosher.
=========
is kosher possible?
is judge jewish? pro-Israel etc??!!!! are attack points = chinks!!
item posted by Ann Althouse at 5:28 PM on Jul 26, 2023
....
"Given the angry reaction of Team Biden, I wonder if it's more likely that this 'gulf in understanding' is precisely the most important part of the plea deal, and that the ample room for future re-interpretation is what the aim of the Biden team was in the first place."
Aggie at 6:10
item Posted by Ann Althouse at 7:55 AM 7/27/2023
Writes Adam Kotsko, in "Moralism Is Ruining Cultural Criticism/The left has embraced an approach long favored by the evangelical right" (The Atlantic).
... Yet the very fact that the demand is so open-ended that it is impossible to imagine an artwork meeting its largely unstated and unarticulated standards shows that something has gone wrong here...
========
hooray >>> agree or contradict?
its a TRUMP appointment in charge p*Y grabbing morons
CTH has more details of court transcripts of exchanges with DOJ lawyers.
am I correct to fear >> if they can rope in this judge then using this as precedent D’s would have unitary ‘Executive-Judiciary-legislative’ once they can bake in electoral!
nice coup on constitution – well planned but hopefully successful defeated.
Liz is just really ugly. Looks like her dad.
I’m starting to have second thoughts about Judge Noreika actions yesterday. First of all, I think she was pissed and rightfully so about the stunt Clark’s office tried to pull to get the Republican Amicus Brief withdrawn. That was very brazen and sophomoric, and that they even thought to try it shows a great level of disrespect for Noreika’s court. At that point, “rubber stamping” was never going to happen. What type of ethics would Noreika show by rewarding such behavior by rubber stamping a deal without basic questions?
So she asks a basic question that the Prosecutors did not want to answer, but they did so pro forma, which is to say of course they could prosecute other crimes found in the ongoing investigation related to FARA. She’s not a big fan of being made to be the functional parole officer for Hunter Biden. But this is all part of the low key pretrial diversion agreement. Everyone knows Hunter won’t abide by his agreement to refrain from drug use for two years, but if the Judge is to monitor that, what resources would she have to track Hunter? “Oh, she’s a federal judge.” So what? It is the Executive Branch that has those resources, but there are too many people there that might follow the rules.
Now, did Judge Noreika ask her question because she is noble, because she was pissed at the earlier antics, or because she really thinks the Executive Branch should do that job and they need to fix the mistake? And when she asked her question, who here believes the DoJ trial prosecutor answered what was agreed between the parties or in a pro forma manner of “of course the investigation is ongoing and might find other crimes to prosecute”?
I don’t know for sure Judge Noreika’s judicial ethics, but I’m confident her court was handpicked by the DoJ. She was nominated by both Democrat Delaware Senators and happened to be sent through by Trump (as if he had a choice other than no). Biden’s a big name in Delaware for decades, and you can bet no judge made it to the federal level during those decades that didn’t get to know the Biden’s. Call me skeptical. However, let’s give her the benefit of doubt for now.
I think the DoJ prosecutor wasn’t prepared for the question, which is even more remarkable. As if he thought the Judge would just go along with it. I think the response was what he thought any judge would expect to hear, and forgetting his role in this case. My understanding that it was Hunter that first outburst, “the deal is off”, and then his lawyer that began noting this discrepancy in the agreement. From this point, it became a public basket case with only one remedy. Hunter couldn’t accept a plea agreement that was unclear nor was he going to admit guilt. So Hunter pleads “not guilty”, which ends that days activities. Except they get a mulligan if they want it. They can work through the questions posed by Judge Noreika and make a new agreement. She even gave them a problem to solve, find someone else to track Hunter’s adherence to the agreement. And if they can’t, they need only pretend for now. The goal is to keep a trial of Hunter Biden from ever happening. The ongoing DoJ investigation is to keep Congress from meddling, so it can’t go away. If they can get a plea agreement that protects the Biden’s from further scrutiny, they’ll do it. If not, the DoJ tells Joe his son is f’d up, and he’ll need to pardon Hunter before he leaves office.
All the Judge has done is pushed the issue a bit longer, and to be fair, she did so in a manner that keeps her court respected, which is necessary for the success of a plea deal anyway.
the problem is these agreements weren't written by the prosecutors at all, but by the defense. Why was Hunter being given immunity at all? What was he given the DOJ? NOTHING. It's not like was agreeing to testify about the criminal actions of WH officials or his father in exchange. The whole thing is a sham put on for political reasons.
There is no real investigation. There's no real prosecution. They haven't even bothered indicting him yet and they're not going to. What they'll just ignore it until the SOL runs and they can't charge him anyway. That'll be in October on gun charge.
There's no independence here: it's Biden's DOJ vs. Biden's son, and the only goal is to get Hunter Biden's name out of the news. It's 100% corruption.
Asking a federal judge to rubberstamp anything? While trying to play the judge? Good luck with that. No matter what "prima facia" or anything else means, if the judge wants to see all of the works you better start producing the works. Piss one off enough and you better decide not to practice in that jurisdiction.
Old joke:
Q: What's the difference between God and a federal judge?
A: God doesn't think he's a federal judge.
The first thing you need to understand is that pretty much all coverage of this has been total crap
Here's the transcript of the hearing:
https://media.marcopolousa.org/pdf/20230726hearingtranscript.pdf
So yes, Hunter said he was willing to plead guilty, the judge started poking, the prosecutors refused to admit to the full corruption of the deal, and Hunter said "in that case I won't plead guilty."
Then the judge ordered a short recess, Weis and Clark went off to have a friendly chat, and they came back with the prosecutor maintaining the same story (yes, we can file FARA charges later) but Hunter switching to agreeing to plead guilty.
THEN the judge started to really push. She occasionally referenced the fact that Hunter had "under oath" both said he wasn't willing to plead guilty, and then that he was, as the cause for her concern and digging, but that seemed pro-forma to me.
So, Hunter was willing to plead guilty and get this deal on teh books, which is not what any of the stories "reported".
It was completely the judge, refusing to take part in an "unprecedented" (as agreed by both the prosecutor and the defense) deal.
She confirmed in Court that the Statute of Limitations on the crimes was not until Oct 12, 2023, then sent the prosecution and defense off with a homework assignment of coming up with a deal that isn't unconstitutional, one that doesn't violate separation of powers by making her the one to decide on charging.
Oh, and they also have to tell her the justification for their scam of pretending that it's an 11(c)(1)(B) (judge doesn't get to do anything but rubber stamp the deal, because the deal official doesn't constrain the judge's sentencing) plea, rather than a 11(c)(1)(A) plea, where the judge does get to approve or reject.
The difference is that a deal that includes a non-prosecution agreement is supposed to always be under 11(c)(1)(A), whereas 11(c)(1)(B) is for where you simply plead to a crime, and the judge can impose a heavier sentence than you agreed to.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा