1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidI wouldn't say she "demanded" it; she asked the prosecutor if the agreement would bar charges for Hunter under not filing as a foreign agent as an example. The prosecutor promptly responded "no". Defense counsel objected, then asked for a ten minute recess to discuss the matter with the prosecutor after which Hunter's lawyer had the exchange with the judge I already quoted.
“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.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190211798/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges
You can quit with your semantics
The judge never suggested she would have had a problem with a general immunity clause; that hypothetical never came up.
@no1marauder saiddid the judge approve the plea deal as written?
I wouldn't say she "demanded" it; she asked the prosecutor if the agreement would bar charges for Hunter under not filing as a foreign agent as an example. The prosecutor promptly responded "no". Defense counsel objected, then asked for a ten minute recess to discuss the matter with the prosecutor after which Hunter's lawyer had the exchange with the judge I already quote ...[text shortened]... gested she would have had a problem with a general immunity clause; that hypothetical never came up.
@mott-the-hoople saidSince you keep asking the same question, I'll keep giving you the same answer:
did the judge approve the plea deal as written?
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 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".
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidHere's the relevant part of the Hearing:
“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.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190211798/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges
You can quit with your semantics
"THE COURT: No, tell me, like specifically what
18 does it include. You said that there is an investigation, I
19 don't know what that is, but you must know that if there are
20 particular charges that could be brought based on the facts
21 that are there.
22 MR. WISE: So I can tell you what I think we
23 can't charge. I can't tell you what the ongoing
24 investigation is. So, for instance, I think based on the
25 terms of the agreement, we cannot bring tax evasion chargesfor the years described in the factual statement to the Plea
2 Agreement. And I think we cannot bring for the firearms
3 charges based on the firearm identified in the factual
4 statement to the Diversion Agreement.
5 THE COURT: All right. So there are references
6 to foreign companies, for example, in the facts section.
7 Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents
8 Registration Act?
9 MR. WISE: Yes.
10 THE COURT: I'm trying to figure out if there is
11 a meeting of the minds here and I'm not sure that this
12 provision isn't part of the Plea Agreement and so that's why
13 I'm asking.
14 MR. CLARK: Your Honor, the Plea Agreement --
15 THE COURT: I need you to answer my question if
16 you can. Is there a meeting of the minds on that one?
17 MR. CLARK: As stated by the government just
18 now, I don't agree with what the government said.
19 THE COURT: So I mean, these are contracts. To
20 be enforceable, there has to be a meeting of the minds. So
21 what do we do now?
22 MR. WISE: Then there is no deal.
23 THE COURT: All right. I guess then the
24 question is where does that leave us? So what do we need to
25 do? Do you guys need some time to talk? Do you need me to
56
1 set a date -- do we need to talk about a preliminary hearing
2 since we didn't really need to do one with the agreement?
3 MR. CLARK: We'll waive the preliminary hearing.
4 As far as I'm concerned, the Plea Agreement is null and
5 void. You know, we'll have -- we are going to have to
6 discuss things with the government."
pp. 54-56 of the Hearing Transcript
This is followed by:
"MR. CLARK: Your Honor, can we ask you to take
2 ten minutes and see whether we can somehow make any headway
3 on this?
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 MR. CLARK: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 COURT CLERK: All rise.
7 (A brief recess was taken.)
8 THE COURT: All right. Please be seated. Where
9 are we?
10 MR. CLARK: Your Honor, we have had some
11 discussion between the parties to try to clarify the
12 understanding and I just want to kind of summarize where we
13 are and if the government's counsel wants to correct me.
14 The parties have taken the position that the Diversion
15 Agreement is a separate agreement from the Plea Agreement.
16 The Diversion Agreement is a bilateral contract between the
17 parties. Your Honor has asked the parties what their
18 understanding of the paragraph 15 of the Diversion Agreement
19 is. I think there was some space between us and at this
20 point, we are prepared to agree with the government that the
21 scope of paragraph 15 relates to the specific areas of
22 federal crimes that are discussed in the statement of facts
23 which in general and broadly relate to gun possession, tax
24 issues, and drug use.
MR. CLARK: The government says that's what it
2 means and Your Honor asked for what the parties agree.
3 THE COURT: I'm just looking at the language of
4 that. So you're comfortable with that's what it means even
5 though the language of that seems substantially broader?
6 MR. CLARK: Your Honor, I just put on the record
7 what I have --
8 THE COURT: You didn't just answer yes so that
9 also -- so yes, you are comfortable that that provision
10 means that it only relate and for what period of time?
11 MR. WISE: It would be the period of time in the
12 statement of fact, both statement of facts.
13 THE COURT: Help me out with that.
14 MR. WISE: '14 to '19 for the tax offenses and
15 the drug -- and the admission of drug use in that period and
16 then the firearms is obviously specifically identified in
17 the time period in which that was possessed.
18 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: Yes, Your Honor.
pp. 57-58 of the Hearing Transcript
@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.” "
Here's the relevant part of the Hearing:
"THE COURT: No, tell me, like specifically what
18 does it include. You said that there is an investigation, I
19 don't know what that is, but you must know that if there are
20 particular charges that could be brought based on the facts
21 that are there.
22 MR. WISE: So I can tell you what I think we
23 can't charge. I c ...[text shortened]... s
23 particular firearm?
24 MR. CLARK: Yes, Your Honor.[/b]
pp. 57-58 of the Hearing Transcript
oh the
"relevant" part lol relevant for who?
“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.”
Is NPR lying?
@mott-the-hoople saidI gave you the link; if you think anything in the transcript supports your claims, use it.
"“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.” "
oh the
"relevant" part lol relevant for who?
“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.”
Is NPR lying?
Media coverage of legal issues usually stinks. NPR is wrong; there's nothing in the transcript that can be remotely characterized as a "demand" "from both sides make clear that the deal does not convey broad immunity offered to Biden from prosecution on his business dealings.”
@no1marauder saidBy the time the two opinions are threshed out, and Mott proves correct, Hunter will get a deal. You are wasting your time.
I gave you the link; if you think anything in the transcript supports your claims, use it.
Media coverage of legal issues usually stinks. NPR is wrong; there's nothing in the transcript that can be remotely characterized as a "demand" "from both sides make clear that the deal does not convey broad immunity offered to Biden from prosecution on his business dealings.”
Hey do you love the eloquent Fulton Counry Ga DA, saying "commitit' instead of committed? Oh Lord, cultural problem, the Court Reporter will have to change her/his lingo when speaking into the stenomask!!!
1 edit
@no1marauder said"NPR is wrong;"
I gave you the link; if you think anything in the transcript supports your claims, use it.
Media coverage of legal issues usually stinks. NPR is wrong; there's nothing in the transcript that can be remotely characterized as a "demand" "from both sides make clear that the deal does not convey broad immunity offered to Biden from prosecution on his business dealings.”
everyone is wrong but you, the judge, the lawyers, now NPR...
you are a blooming idiot
@mott-the-hoople saidYour holding your breath until you turn blue strategy isn't going to work.
"NPR is wrong;"
everyone is wrong but you, the judge, the lawyers, now NPR...
you are a blooming idiot
I've quoted directly from the Judge and the lawyers and it does not support your claims i.e. the false info being peddled incessantly mostly by right wing media.
@no1marauder saidah nice flip…you are accusing me of what you are doing…
Your holding your breath until you turn blue strategy isn't going to work.
I've quoted directly from the Judge and the lawyers and it does not support your claims i.e. the false info being peddled incessantly mostly by right wing media.
old as the hills boy, no one falling for it 😂
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidOh you are such a dullard if you make a plea deal of course you are immune from future charges emanating from the events to which you’ve just pled guilty.
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.
Surely It’s the prosecution that forms the plea deal and presented it to the judge after agreement by the defence.
The judge threw out the prosecution plea deal because they could not confirm that they had concluded their investigation.
Any way we don’t have to worry about a plea deal from Donald, he’s making way to much coin from his idiot base off the back of them.
@kevcvs57 said"Oh you are such a dullard if you make a plea deal of course you are immune from future charges emanating from the events to which you’ve just pled guilty. "
Oh you are such a dullard if you make a plea deal of course you are immune from future charges emanating from the events to which you’ve just pled guilty.
Surely It’s the prosecution that forms the plea deal and presented it to the judge after agreement by the defence.
The judge threw out the prosecution plea deal because they could not confirm that they had concluded th ...[text shortened]... bout a plea deal from Donald, he’s making way to much coin from his idiot base off the back of them.
please dont reply if you dont know what happened, it makes you look ignorant...well, because you are
it wasnt just those two charges