@kevcvs57 saidare you claiming you dont?
“So I pretty much write unrestricted with no boundaries when writing on the Forum”
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.
@mott-the-hoople saidNo there wasn't; you've been shown the actual wording and even the defense agreed it did not contain such a blanket grant of immunity. I know right wing propaganda sources are telling you differently, but read it for yourself.
the 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.
There was no immunity from FUTURE crimes however. But there was blanket immunity from ANY CRIME committed up to this point.
2 edits
@mott-the-hoople saidNo, but not because she thought it was a "sweetheart deal" that granted "general immunity". It was mostly because she didn't like the provision in the Diversion Agreement that would have required her to decide whether the Defendant had violated the terms of that agreement. Moreover, here's what she said:
hey fool...did the judge approve the plea deal?
" So I need some additional information. I'm not
3 saying I'm not going to reject the plea, I'm not saying I'm
4 going to accept the Plea Agreement. I need more
5 information."
p. 109 of the Hearing Transcript
This was long after defense counsel had already conceded that the Plea Agreement did not grant "general immunity".
@no1marauder said"
No, but not because she thought it was a "sweetheart deal" that granted "general immunity". It was mostly because she didn't like the provision in the Diversion Agreement that would have required her to decide whether the Defendant had violated the terms of that agreement. Moreover, here's what she said:
" So I need some additional information. I'm not
3 saying I'm no ...[text shortened]... after defense counsel had already conceded that the Plea Agreement did not grant "general immunity".
This was long after defense counsel had already conceded that the Plea Agreement did not grant "general immunity".'
why are you trying to slip "general immunity" in?
shytweasel
@no1marauder saidI am sorry, but this thread needs plain english, this is why I refrain from spewing lawyery stuff to some who might not quite get it.
No there wasn't; you've been shown the actual wording and even the defense agreed it did not contain such a blanket grant of immunity. I know right wing propaganda sources are telling you differently, but read it for yourself.
Please absorb....
The judge had problems with the plea deal. A judge, not some laymen. Let us defer to a judge? OK
The judge said, wait what is this? Essentially, buried in the language is a broad immunity deal that provided that Hunter would not face anything else. She went down that road and figured out what they were 'up to', and stopped their plan. How it was negotiated and what went in to it is now going to be a part of the proceedings going forward.
A liberal will read what I just wrote and say " what do you mean by anything else!?!??" Makes my head spin. A lawyer would surely understand, in early stages of such an issue, what that means. Or, Vivify might say,,,,,,"Tell us all the stuff that he would not face". Look it up, Vivify, it is all over he internet, or, get a beer and watch it non-stop on FOX. It is all there. And to you, ALL of the moderators and contributors are lying !!! Enter Suzianne!! Lying!!
I am sure that this has helped somewhat. No lawyering needed!
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople said"General immunity" means the same thing as "blanket immunity" in this context.
"
This was long after defense counsel had already conceded that the Plea Agreement did not grant "general immunity".'
why are you trying to slip "general immunity" in?
shytweasel
Even defense counsel conceded the agreement granted no such thing.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidNo, it didn't help because it's BS.
I am sorry, but this thread needs plain english, this is why I refrain from spewing lawyery stuff to some who might not quite get it.
Please absorb....
The judge had problems with the plea deal. A judge, not some laymen. Let us defer to a judge? OK
The judge said, wait what is this? Essentially, buried in the language is a broad immu ...[text shortened]... !!! Enter Suzianne!! Lying!!
I am sure that this has helped somewhat. No lawyering needed!
That Fox News is non-stop spewing a falsehood is hardly surprising; ask Dominion.
@no1marauder saidgeneral or blanket, no one is talking about either. The agreement was granting immunity from other crimes that may be discovered.
"General immunity" means the same thing as "blanket immunity" in this context.
Even defense counsel conceded the agreement granted no such thing.
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidJesus, you're ignorant. YOU used the term "blanket immunity" to describe what you claim was in the agreement. It isn't though as even defense counsel conceded.
general or blanket, no one is talking about either. The agreement was granting immunity from other crimes that may be discovered.
EDIT: Mott the Idiot: But there was blanket immunity from ANY CRIME committed up to this point.
@AverageJoe1
Good luck arguing with a full fledged lawyer. You are in over your pay grade on this one, and many others too but this one is especially noticeable.
@no1marauder saidup to this point...did that escape you?
Jesus, you're ignorant. YOU used the term "blanket immunity" to describe what you claim was in the agreement. It isn't though as even defense counsel conceded.
EDIT: Mott the Idiot: But there was blanket immunity from ANY CRIME committed up to this point.
blanket immunity in the context you use and (the defense)covers all time periods...and it is true, there were no provisions for total blanket immunity.
Was the agreement approved?
@mott-the-hoople saidThere's no such thing in US law as immunity for future crimes. "General" or "blanket" immunity has the same meaning.
up to this point...did that escape you?
blanket immunity in the context you use and (the defense)covers all time periods...and it is true, there were no provisions for total blanket immunity.
Was the agreement approved?
And the agreement didn't grant it as, again, even defense counsel conceded.
@averagejoe1 saidThe prosecutors reneged. Simple as.
I am sorry, but this thread needs plain english, this is why I refrain from spewing lawyery stuff to some who might not quite get it.
Please absorb....
The judge had problems with the plea deal. A judge, not some laymen. Let us defer to a judge? OK
The judge said, wait what is this? Essentially, buried in the language is a broad immu ...[text shortened]... !!! Enter Suzianne!! Lying!!
I am sure that this has helped somewhat. No lawyering needed!
@no1marauder said“Judge Maryellen Noreika demanded that the lawyers from both sides make clear that the deal does not convey broad immunity offered to Biden from prosecution on his business dealings.”
There's no such thing in US law as immunity for future crimes. "General" or "blanket" immunity has the same meaning.
And the agreement didn't grant it as, again, even defense counsel conceded.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190211798/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges
You can quit with your semantics
@averagejoe1 saidWho is saying the 'comments'? That person is wrong.
Well, there was this, and other comments, I was just paraphrasing the comments, which were implying that he should have gotten the deal, and not been kicked out. It is not that difficult to see.
This was one of the comments. It does not exactly agree with the judge's actions.
There was no "sweetheart deal" granting Hunter Biden general immunity besides the tax and gun charges: that's a persistent right wing talking point that can charitably called a "myth".