You may find it tedious reading.
https://twitter.com/jenvanlaar/status/1684425222378917889
I can see the idea of some courtroom theatre in action noted in this
tweet.
Now, as @shipwreckedcrew , a former federal prosecutor and current
federal criminal defense attorney, has observed, there's a more than
decent possibility that this build-up to the "then there's no deal!" crescendo was role playing by Wise and Clark, that the deal needed to
be scuttled due to everything that was revealed since the plea was
announced, but Weiss' office needed to save face. So keep that in
mind as we move forward.
On 7/27/23 5:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
You may find it tedious reading.
https://twitter.com/jenvanlaar/status/1684425222378917889
I can see the idea of some courtroom theatre in action noted in this tweet.
Now, as @shipwreckedcrew , a former federal prosecutor and currentMuch simpler to assume the lawyers one both sides messed up.
federal criminal defense attorney, has observed, there's a more than decent possibility that this build-up to the "then there's no deal!" crescendo was role playing by Wise and Clark, that the deal needed to
be scuttled due to everything that was revealed since the plea was announced, but Weiss' office needed to save face. So keep that in
mind as we move forward.
The terms
should have been in writing and the judge should not have been asked to decide on the gun diversion.
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:51:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Much simpler to assume the lawyers one both sides messed up.
Did you read the part where the judge asks DoJ lawyers if they've
ever done or know of a plea deal done like this? Answer: No.
The terms should have been in writing and the judge should not have
been asked to decide on the gun diversion.
She wasn't asked...that's why they tried to hide the immunity there.
She also issued this little piece on contact with the clerks. which
in summary says, "Don't do it again."
"The federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s federal criminal case on Friday ordered attorneys to raise issues with her chambers, not the
court clerk, after bizarre accusations of impersonation.
Noreika, ordered on Friday that “any issues or inquiries” in the case “shall be brought to my attention and not to the Clerk’s Office.”
“The Clerk’s Office for this Court is staffed by many hardworking and dedicated employees,” she wrote. “They are often the public face of
this Court and must address many different, and often difficult,
issues on any given day. Their jobs are not always easy, but they do
these jobs well. They have earned my trust and my respect. I will not tolerate or countenance them being ill-used, disrespected or lied
to.”
Hmmm, sounds like the Biden team does not have her trust or respect.
On 7/28/23 11:23 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:51:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Much simpler to assume the lawyers one both sides messed up.
Did you read the part where the judge asks DoJ lawyers if they'veThat would be a "mess up."
ever done or know of a plea deal done like this? Answer: No.
The terms should have been in writing and the judge should not have
been asked to decide on the gun diversion.
She wasn't asked...that's why they tried to hide the immunity there.The immunity was not hidden in the gun diversion.
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:25:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/28/23 11:23 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:51:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:That would be a "mess up."
Much simpler to assume the lawyers one both sides messed up.
Did you read the part where the judge asks DoJ lawyers if
they've ever done or know of a plea deal done like this? Answer:
No.
I've heard a whole slew of attorney's opining that this is not a mess
up. This was intentional attempt to deceive the court
The immunity was not hidden in the gun diversion.The terms should have been in writing and the judge should not
have been asked to decide on the gun diversion.
She wasn't asked...that's why they tried to hide the immunity
there.
"Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign business
endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax charges, but
wrote the immunity standards into the diversion agreement -- the
much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would include "any federal crimes encompassed" in the statement of facts for the plea agreement."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:25:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
The immunity was not hidden in the gun diversion.
"Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign business
endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax charges, but
wrote the immunity standards into the diversion agreement -- the
much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would include "any federal crimes
encompassed" in the statement of facts for the plea agreement."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
Well-cited. Not hidden. Now we need to see the "statement of facts" to
see what's in there.
On 7/29/23 12:35 PM, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:25:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
The immunity was not hidden in the gun diversion.
"Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign business
endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax charges, but
wrote the immunity standards into the diversion agreement -- the
much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would include "any federal crimes
encompassed" in the statement of facts for the plea agreement."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
Well-cited. Not hidden. Now we need to see the "statement of facts" toNot the "statement of facts" but someone posted a transcript of unknown provenance:
see what's in there.
https://media.marcopolousa.org/pdf/20230726hearingtranscript.pdf
THE COURT: All right. You can be seated. So yesterday I received from
third parties a letter with almost 900 pages of attachments in one case,
and a memorandum of law with hundreds of more pages of exhibits...
So let me ask you this. If I were to think that the facts presented in
those submissions or even the facts that have been presented to me in
this case and the attached agreements suggest that the investigation was lacking or that more serious charges should have been brought, is it
within my power to ask or direct the United States Attorney or the
Attorney General of the United States to redo the investigation or bring different or more serious charges?
MR. WISE: I don't believe so, Your Honor, no.
MR. CLARK: We agree, Your Honor, it would raise obviously massive
separation of powers questions if that was to be taken.
THE COURT: Okay. And isn't that decision about what charges to bring for
the prosecutor as part of the Executive Branch?
MR. WISE: It is, Your Honor.
MR. CLARK: We concur, Your Honor.
End quote.
Some disdain for the Republican filing!
On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:25:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/28/23 11:23 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:51:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:That would be a "mess up."
Much simpler to assume the lawyers one both sides messed up.
Did you read the part where the judge asks DoJ lawyers if
they've ever done or know of a plea deal done like this? Answer:
No.
I've heard a whole slew of attorney's opining that this is not a messNot clear. And the clerks are not the court.
up. This was intentional attempt to deceive the court
The immunity was not hidden in the gun diversion.The terms should have been in writing and the judge should not
have been asked to decide on the gun diversion.
She wasn't asked...that's why they tried to hide the immunity
there.
"Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign business endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax charges, but
wrote the immunity standards into the diversion agreement -- the much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would include "any federal crimes encompassed" in the statement of facts for the plea agreement."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
Well-cited. Not hidden. Now we need to see the "statement of facts" to
see what's in there.
Why would the prosecutor tell the judge there was no immunity for
non-tax crimes?
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:25:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Not clear. And the clerks are not the court.
On 7/28/23 11:23 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:51:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:That would be a "mess up."
Much simpler to assume the lawyers one both sides messed
up.
Did you read the part where the judge asks DoJ lawyers if
they've ever done or know of a plea deal done like this?
Answer: No.
I've heard a whole slew of attorney's opining that this is not a
mess up. This was intentional attempt to deceive the court
Try to follow the the actual conversation....We're on the plea deal
and the attachments in the diversion. Not contacting the clerk to
get the report from congress withdrawn.
The immunity was not hidden in the gun diversion.The terms should have been in writing and the judge should
not have been asked to decide on the gun diversion.
She wasn't asked...that's why they tried to hide the immunity
there.
"Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign
business endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax
charges, but wrote the immunity standards into the diversion
agreement -- the much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would include
"any federal crimes encompassed" in the statement of facts for
the plea agreement."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
Well-cited. Not hidden. Now we need to see the "statement of
facts" to see what's in there.
Why would the prosecutor tell the judge there was no immunity for
non-tax crimes?
Because they couldn't say it in open court proceedings being
transcribed and released. That would have been a huge and obvious
sweetheart of a deal that no one else ever gets.
Most say they (and they being both sides, prosecution and defense)
simply hoped the judge would miss the immunity standards buried in
the diversion agreement that a judge usually has no role in
implementing or overseeing.
On 7/29/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:25:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Not clear. And the clerks are not the court.
On 7/28/23 11:23 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:51:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:That would be a "mess up."
Much simpler to assume the lawyers one both sides messed
up.
Did you read the part where the judge asks DoJ lawyers if
they've ever done or know of a plea deal done like this?
Answer: No.
I've heard a whole slew of attorney's opining that this is not a
mess up. This was intentional attempt to deceive the court
Try to follow the the actual conversation....We're on the plea dealThat's what I thought you meant by "attempting to deceive the court."
and the attachments in the diversion. Not contacting the clerk to
get the report from congress withdrawn.
The plea hearing is where a judge questions whether the defendent understands what's going on. It's impossible to hide something that has
to be stated in court.
The immunity was not hidden in the gun diversion.The terms should have been in writing and the judge should
not have been asked to decide on the gun diversion.
She wasn't asked...that's why they tried to hide the immunity
there.
"Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign
business endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax
charges, but wrote the immunity standards into the diversion
agreement -- the much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would include
"any federal crimes encompassed" in the statement of facts for
the plea agreement."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
Well-cited. Not hidden. Now we need to see the "statement of
facts" to see what's in there.
Why would the prosecutor tell the judge there was no immunity for
non-tax crimes?
Because they couldn't say it in open court proceedings beingThat's ridiculous.
transcribed and released. That would have been a huge and obvious sweetheart of a deal that no one else ever gets.
Most say they (and they being both sides, prosecution and defense)The paragraph above is too poorly drafted to be an effective immunity
simply hoped the judge would miss the immunity standards buried in
the diversion agreement that a judge usually has no role in
implementing or overseeing.
deal.
What paragraph above what?
ScottW
Not clear. And the clerks are not the court.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:17:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
She wasn't asked...that's why they tried to hide theThe immunity was not hidden in the gun diversion.
immunity there.
"Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign
business endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax
charges, but wrote the immunity standards into the diversion
agreement -- the much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would
include "any federal crimes encompassed" in the statement of
facts for the plea agreement."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
That's ridiculous.Well-cited. Not hidden. Now we need to see the "statement of facts" to see what's in there.
Why would the prosecutor tell the judge there was no immunity
for non-tax crimes?
Because they couldn't say it in open court proceedings being
transcribed and released. That would have been a huge and
obvious sweetheart of a deal that no one else ever gets.
BS....you think the defense didn't ask the prosecution about this
while the agreement was being developed? GMAFB.
The only reason the DoJ changed positions was because their deal was
being exposed to the public.
Most say they (and they being both sides, prosecution andThe paragraph above is too poorly drafted to be an effective
defense) simply hoped the judge would miss the immunity standards
buried in the diversion agreement that a judge usually has no
role in implementing or overseeing.
immunity deal.
What paragraph above what?
What paragraph above what?Just because google groups suppresses quoted text doesn't mean it's not
still there.
On 7/30/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:17:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
She wasn't asked...that's why they tried to hide theThe immunity was not hidden in the gun diversion.
immunity there.
"Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign
business endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax
charges, but wrote the immunity standards into the diversion
agreement -- the much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would
include "any federal crimes encompassed" in the statement of
facts for the plea agreement."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
That's ridiculous.Well-cited. Not hidden. Now we need to see the "statement of facts" to see what's in there.
Why would the prosecutor tell the judge there was no immunity
for non-tax crimes?
Because they couldn't say it in open court proceedings being
transcribed and released. That would have been a huge and
obvious sweetheart of a deal that no one else ever gets.
BS....you think the defense didn't ask the prosecution about this
while the agreement was being developed? GMAFB.
The only reason the DoJ changed positions was because their deal wasNo, it's because the lawyers didn't agree on the drafting after whatever verbal discussions they had.
being exposed to the public.
There's no way to get that deal past the judge the way you say.
Most say they (and they being both sides, prosecution andThe paragraph above is too poorly drafted to be an effective
defense) simply hoped the judge would miss the immunity standards
buried in the diversion agreement that a judge usually has no
role in implementing or overseeing.
immunity deal.
What paragraph above what?Just because google groups suppresses quoted text doesn't mean it's not still there.
Just because google groups suppresses quoted text doesn't mean it's not
What paragraph above what?
still there.
Just because Democrats suppress Joe's bribery schemes doesn't mean
they are not there.
(Just comparing and contrasting!)
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:45:31 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:17:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
No, it's because the lawyers didn't agree on the drafting after whateverhttps://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
That's ridiculous.Well-cited. Not hidden. Now we need to see the "statement of facts" to see what's in there.
Why would the prosecutor tell the judge there was no immunity
for non-tax crimes?
Because they couldn't say it in open court proceedings being
transcribed and released. That would have been a huge and
obvious sweetheart of a deal that no one else ever gets.
BS....you think the defense didn't ask the prosecution about this
while the agreement was being developed? GMAFB.
The only reason the DoJ changed positions was because their deal was
being exposed to the public.
verbal discussions they had.
Yeah...except both appeared in front of the judge to tell them the "draft" submitted to the court was agreed to....until it wasn't.
Just because google groups suppresses quoted text doesn't mean it's notMost say they (and they being both sides, prosecution andThe paragraph above is too poorly drafted to be an effective
defense) simply hoped the judge would miss the immunity standards
buried in the diversion agreement that a judge usually has no
role in implementing or overseeing.
immunity deal.
What paragraph above what?
still there.
and the paragraph count above grows.
On 7/31/23 10:28 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
Just because google groups suppresses quoted text doesn't mean it's not >> still there.
What paragraph above what?
Just because Democrats suppress Joe's bribery schemes doesn't mean
they are not there.
(Just comparing and contrasting!)No, deflecting.
Call it whatever you want, its exactly the same behavior you exhibit(Just comparing and contrasting!)No, deflecting.
On 7/31/23 10:35 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:45:31 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:17:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/29/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
No, it's because the lawyers didn't agree on the drafting after whatever >> verbal discussions they had.https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
That's ridiculous.Well-cited. Not hidden. Now we need to see the "statement of facts" to see what's in there.
Why would the prosecutor tell the judge there was no immunity
for non-tax crimes?
Because they couldn't say it in open court proceedings being
transcribed and released. That would have been a huge and
obvious sweetheart of a deal that no one else ever gets.
BS....you think the defense didn't ask the prosecution about this
while the agreement was being developed? GMAFB.
The only reason the DoJ changed positions was because their deal was
being exposed to the public.
Yeah...except both appeared in front of the judge to tell them the "draft" submitted to the court was agreed to....until it wasn't.Yes, quite the misunderstanding showing they both messed up.
Just because google groups suppresses quoted text doesn't mean it's not >> still there.Most say they (and they being both sides, prosecution andThe paragraph above is too poorly drafted to be an effective
defense) simply hoped the judge would miss the immunity standards >>>>> buried in the diversion agreement that a judge usually has no
role in implementing or overseeing.
immunity deal.
What paragraph above what?
and the paragraph count above grows.Really? The one you posted from ABC. I'll post it below, if using
directions isn't too confusing:
"Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign
business endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax
charges, but wrote the immunity standards into the diversion
agreement -- the much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would
include "any federal crimes encompassed" in the statement of
facts for the plea agreement."
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:43:24 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/31/23 10:28 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
No, deflecting.
Just because google groups suppresses quoted text doesn't mean it's not >>>> still there.
What paragraph above what?
Just because Democrats suppress Joe's bribery schemes doesn't mean
they are not there.
(Just comparing and contrasting!)
Call it whatever you want, its exactly the same behavior you exhibit
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:52:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/31/23 10:35 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:45:31 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:17:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
On 7/29/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
On 7/29/23 12:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321
Really? The one you posted from ABC. I'll post it below, if usingJust because google groups suppresses quoted text doesn't meanThe paragraph above is too poorly drafted to be an
effective immunity deal.
What paragraph above what?
it's not still there.
and the paragraph count above grows.
directions isn't too confusing: "Prosecutors included details about
Hunter Biden's foreign business endeavors into the plea deal on the
misdemeanor tax charges, but wrote the immunity standards into the
diversion agreement -- the much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would
include "any federal crimes encompassed" in the statement of facts
for the plea agreement."
No wonder I was confused. What makes you think the ABC story is
actually part of the immunity deal? Your words "The paragraph above
is too poorly drafted to be an effective immunity deal." Now it turns
out the paragraph above was an ABC news story.....WTF?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 16:38:59 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,351,254 |