@no1marauder saiddenied ...her actions prove all you need to know
You haven't quoted one word from the judge here.
@marerider#1
Even the leftist rag WAPO has come around...
"“Strangely,” the report says, “Mr. Biden’s attorneys and prosecutors appeared to have differing views about whether the president’s son could face further charges under the deal, spurring questions about whether the two sides came to any private understandings not spelled out in the written agreement.”
Except if you read the actual written agreement, it is clear that the deal was an unprecedented broad grant of immunity to Hunter Biden. According to the transcript of the hearing, that is exactly how the federal judge read the agreement too.
Considering that the grant of immunity was included in the diversion agreement to the gun charge, an agreement that is normally kept secret, and not the plea agreement to the tax crimes, a document that is made public, it’s almost as if Weiss was trying to keep the unprecedented nature of the plea deal a secret.
Which is just one reason why it is distressing that Attorney General Merrick Garland named Weiss to be the special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. Weiss just tried to sweep this whole affair under the rug a couple of weeks ago. The only person that prevented him from doing so was a sharp federal judge. Why should Weiss be trusted to investigate Hunter Biden fully now?
That the Washington Post editorial board was so trusting of Weiss before a federal judge blew up his plea agreement with Hunter Biden should tell you everything about how trusting they are of Weiss to investigate Hunter Biden now fully.
The Hunter Biden plea deal was immediately suspicious the second it was announced, and Weiss’s appointment as special counsel is just as suspicious.
But now, after actually reading the agreement, the Washington Post isn’t so sure.
“Initially appearing reasonable, the deal turned out to include peculiar details suggesting critics might have been justified to suspect that Mr. Biden was being given special treatment,” the Washington Post writes."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-post-flip-flops-on-hunter-biden-plea
@mott-the-hoople saidNice post.
@marerider#1
Even the leftist rag WAPO has come around...
"“Strangely,” the report says, “Mr. Biden’s attorneys and prosecutors appeared to have differing views about whether the president’s son could face further charges under the deal, spurring questions about whether the two sides came to any private understandings not spelled out in the written agreement.”
...[text shortened]... ites."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-post-flip-flops-on-hunter-biden-plea
@averagejoe1 saidReally now. See, this is what’s wrong with you alt-right folks.
The comment 2 clicks up that I copied from a previous post is where you obviously take exception to the finding that there is said immunity. The judge said hold on, lawyers......what is this immunity all about.
But you say there is 'no' immunity. Man can you parse some stuff. Geez 'o mighty....I bet you say Mississippi different than I do.
Do you see what you’re doing? You’re discussing a law case with a lawyer (a specialist on a specific subject) and think that you know more than the lawyer.
You lot do this with virusses, philosophy, diplomacy, politics and every other subject.
Instead of asking for the experts’ opinions, you think you know better.
You heard something from some or other right-wing propaganda outlet, and try to push it online… why? No one knows. Then an expert weighs in, tells you the facts, and you carry on thinking your propaganda outlet was correct.
It’s crazy stuff.
I mean, and this is so clear cut, it’s absurdist humor.
On one hand there’s a professional, explaining in detail what’s stated in which paragraph and put into context for you.
And on the other hand there’s you writing: “Geez oh mighty.”
Do you see?
@averagejoe1 saidOf which 95% is the Washington Examiner, not the Washington Post.
Nice post.
I stand by my analysis based on the actual Plea Agreement, Diversion Agreement and the Hearing Transcript. The version Mott is pushing is a right wing fairy tale fed to gullible fools like him.
@AverageJoe1
All this takes back seat to the new Georgia indictments, including Trump, Giuliani, and 17 others for REAL crimes including the terrorizing of Freeman and her daughter, I guess you all figure what is wrong with that, she was a known vote fraudster.
Which she was not for 100% sure.
But OF COURSE that is what your god king Trump will bleat out on his media.
And of course we presume innocence till proven guilty in a court of law. wink wink.
So now you have much bigger fish to fry, I imagine there will be no more Hunter BS now since all your energy will be subverted to protecting your god king. Good luck with that one.
My guess is Rudy flips and it is all over for your god king.
Just remember, before you throw out the 'corrupt court' defense, it is not the court who recommends indictment, it is the GRAND JURY, composed of BOTH parties who viewed the REAL evidence, like the phone calls Trump made, I want you to find 11,780 votes, that to the Georgia AG, and other calls to the Lt Governor and Rudy doing his thing to the state legislators with his fake voter fraud BS.
So when guilty verdicts come out in a year or so, will you STILL vote for Trump?
@shavixmir saidI can only say that I write as a layman, not as a lawyer. So I pretty much write unrestricted with no boundaries when writing on the Forum, not basing my renderings on legal-eze. So Marauder is a lawyer? I know he has LexisNexis at the ready. So does my wife. But I do not write as a lawyer.
Really now. See, this is what’s wrong with you alt-right folks.
Do you see what you’re doing? You’re discussing a law case with a lawyer (a specialist on a specific subject) and think that you know more than the lawyer.
You lot do this with virusses, philosophy, diplomacy, politics and every other subject.
Instead of asking for the experts’ opinions, you think you k ...[text shortened]... t into context for you.
And on the other hand there’s you writing: “Geez oh mighty.”
Do you see?
Is there some requirement that I am unaware of?
Anybody else?
@shavixmir said“You’re discussing a law case with a lawyer (a specialist on a specific subject) and think that you know more than the lawyer. “
Really now. See, this is what’s wrong with you alt-right folks.
Do you see what you’re doing? You’re discussing a law case with a lawyer (a specialist on a specific subject) and think that you know more than the lawyer.
You lot do this with virusses, philosophy, diplomacy, politics and every other subject.
Instead of asking for the experts’ opinions, you think you k ...[text shortened]... t into context for you.
And on the other hand there’s you writing: “Geez oh mighty.”
Do you see?
😂
it is cute tho, seeing you trying to help your partner.
@no1marauder saidyou were shown the facts, what you do with them is your business.
Of which 95% is the Washington Examiner, not the Washington Post.
I stand by my analysis based on the actual Plea Agreement, Diversion Agreement and the Hearing Transcript. The version Mott is pushing is a right wing fairy tale fed to gullible fools like him.
I dont think you have any standing to dispute a judge…
make a fool of yourself all you want😉
@sonhouse saidWith all due respects, (and congrats by the way on finally getting to the end of your tribulations), if he is found guilty, he, like all guilty people, should receive the punishment required by law, but it will be a tough pill to swallow when Hunter and Joe go free, which they will.
@AverageJoe1
All this takes back seat to the new Georgia indictments, including Trump, Giuliani, and 17 others for REAL crimes including the terrorizing of Freeman and her daughter, I guess you all figure what is wrong with that, she was a known vote fraudster.
Which she was not for 100% sure.
But OF COURSE that is what your god king Trump will bleat out on his media.
An ...[text shortened]... ke voter fraud BS.
So when guilty verdicts come out in a year or so, will you STILL vote for Trump?
Remember to tell your grandkids that AvJoe predicted that libs will always win in the end.
When you sit back and enjoy the show, would you mind a new subject, that of the Biden millions. Just that, a simple treatise. It is documented, Sonhouse...the amount is, but what is the story behind all the money?
@mott-the-hoople saidI gave you the judge's actual words to defendant's lawyer but because you want to believe a right wing fairy tale you ignored them.
you were shown the facts, what you do with them is your business.
I dont think you have any standing to dispute a judge…
make a fool of yourself all you want😉
Nowhere did the judge say anything supporting your version. That's a simple fact.
EDIT: Just to remind you:
"THE COURT: All right. So the defense agrees
19 that the agreement not to prosecute only includes the time
20 period from 2014 to 2019, it only includes tax charges in
21 that time period, drug charges in that time period, and the
22 particular -- the firearms charges that relate to this
23 particular firearm?
24 MR. CLARK[Hunter Biden's lawyer] : Yes, Your Honor
https://media.marcopolousa.org/pdf/20230726hearingtranscript.pdf p. 58
@no1marauder saidhey fool...did the judge approve the plea deal?
I gave you the judge's actual words to defendant's lawyer but because you want to believe a right wing fairy tale you ignored them.
Nowhere did the judge say anything supporting your version. That's a simple fact.
EDIT: Just to remind you:
"THE COURT: All right. So the defense agrees
19 that the agreement not to prosecute only includes the time
20 period from 2 ...[text shortened]... lawyer] : Yes, Your Honor
https://media.marcopolousa.org/pdf/20230726hearingtranscript.pdf p. 58
@averagejoe1 saidThe way I heard it reported was because the prosecution COULD NOT rule out further related prosecutions. I don’t think the judge thought it was right that the defendant should cop a guilty plea for a crime / misdemeanour whilst prosecutors were still investigating with a view to bringing further charges or even the possibility of them
The comment 2 clicks up that I copied from a previous post is where you obviously take exception to the finding that there is said immunity. The judge said hold on, lawyers......what is this immunity all about.
But you say there is 'no' immunity. Man can you parse some stuff. Geez 'o mighty....I bet you say Mississippi different than I do.
@kevcvs57 saidthe prosecution tried to slip in immunity from any other crime already committed. when the judge questioned them on it they plead ignorance. Oh no, that is not what we meant...the judge stop it right there because the written form DID contain just that.
The way I heard it reported was because the prosecution COULD NOT rule out further related prosecutions. I don’t think the judge thought it was right that the defendant should cop a guilty plea for a crime / misdemeanour whilst prosecutors were still investigating with a view to bringing further charges or even the possibility of them
There was no immunity from FUTURE crimes however. But there was blanket immunity from ANY CRIME committed up to this point.
@averagejoe1 said“So I pretty much write unrestricted with no boundaries when writing on the Forum”
I can only say that I write as a layman, not as a lawyer. So I pretty much write unrestricted with no boundaries when writing on the Forum, not basing my renderings on legal-eze. So Marauder is a lawyer? I know he has LexisNexis at the ready. So does my wife. But I do not write as a lawyer.
Is there some requirement that I am unaware of?
Anybody else?
That’s the problem Joe, you, along with your maga cohorts are not even bounded by facts or in your face reality. You just write utter nonsense based on wishful thinking and bare faced lies.