The Hunter Biden Investigation

[Octavious]

And no deal. Our country is one shitshow to the next.

[Octavious]

And for the record I think this deal stinks to high heaven and the judge is right to ask for more information.

[Kurth]

From Ken at PopeHat:

Federal plea agreements typically spell out, very explicitly, the government’s non-prosecution promises. A standard agreement will say that the government agrees that this specific U.S. Attorney’s Office will not prosecute the defendant further for the facts and circumstances described in the plea agreement, but that the deal doesn’t cover any other crimes and doesn’t bind any other office or entity. That’s very narrow. It’s also very explicit and not subject to easy misunderstanding.

So for things to go wrong here, one of the following had to happen:

- The government didn’t define the scope of its promise of non-prosecution in the agreement. That would be a huge mistake and very unusual.

- The government defined the scope of its non-prosecution promise in the plea agreement but the scope was vague or badly drafted. That’s unusual and also a mistake. They are normally extremely careful with this language. The fact that the judge saw fit to inquire about the scope of the deal makes this possibility plausible — if the plea agreement was as clear on this point as it should be, and the judge read it, the judge wouldn’t have to ask that question.

- Hunter Biden’s lawyers didn’t read the plea agreement carefully or didn’t understand the non-prosecution promise. Hunter Biden has experienced attorneys and that would be a huge and embarrassing blunder.

If I could read the plea agreement I could tell you which of these scenarios happened. But they haven’t filed the agreement and haven’t made it public, so we’re left to speculate.

The judge’s refusal to accept the deal for now was appropriate. If there’s no meeting of the minds — if the parties don’t agree on the terms of the deal — the judge shouldn’t accept the plea. Also, once uncertainty has been expressed on the record, it’s not that strange for the judge to say “go put it in writing and come back” rather than accepting their statement “ok we straightened it out now.” Federal judges are notoriously careful about the guilty plea colloquy. I would probably do the same about such a high-profile case — if there was any hint that a party thought the written plea agreement was ambiguous, I would want it fixed.

What this does not seem to suggest, at least based on the information we have, is that the judge has accepted GOP arguments that Hunter Biden is getting a sweetheart deal, or that she’s part of a GOP conspiracy, or that she’s ultimately going to tank the deal.

We may have to wait until the parties file the clarification requested by the judge. One would hope they’d file the plea agreement — amended or not — by then. That will answer questions about this hiccup (and, I think, make it easier to evaluate the “sweetheart deal” arguments).

For now, the only thing I am confident in saying is that somebody done fucked up. But I’m not sure who.

[malchior]

And for the record I think this deal stinks to high heaven and the judge is right to ask for more information.

It's even beyond the point in a way whether it even was preferential. It simply looks that way. Right now there are at a host of GOP blargle machine op eds running saying they are all vindicated! Which is utter horseshit. We still don't know the details of the deal. Meanwhile, they are yelling even more guesses into the air. Unfortunately the utterly terrible major media players will simply amplify that horseshit and people will believe it because that is what happens. For example, CNN ran an op ed written by the politics editor of the WASHINGTON TIMES (I'm not linking it because why give that garbage heap clicks). But come on. Why?

[malchior]

Apparently the plea agreement and PTI memo are available as well. It looks pretty straightforward but I have no idea is someone else in a similar situation would typically be treated this way.

[Grifman]

The Republican’s “star” witness who supposedly had evidence of the President’s involvement in his son’s business dealings was a total dud:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/31/poli ... index.html

Devon Archer told the House Oversight Committee on Monday that his former business partner, Hunter Biden, was selling the “illusion” of access to his father, according to a source familiar with the closed-door interview, the latest development in the Republican-led congressional investigations into the president’s son.

The source also reiterated that Archer provided no evidence connecting President Joe Biden to any of his son’s foreign business dealings.

After the interview concluded, a second source told CNN that Archer did affirm to the committee that Hunter Biden was selling the “illusion” of access to his father, but later clarified that the president’s son was actually selling the illusion of access to Washington, DC, and knowledge of how it worked.

[Scraper]

The Republican’s “star” witness who supposedly had evidence of the President’s involvement in his son’s business dealings was a total dud:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/31/poli ... index.html

Devon Archer told the House Oversight Committee on Monday that his former business partner, Hunter Biden, was selling the “illusion” of access to his father, according to a source familiar with the closed-door interview, the latest development in the Republican-led congressional investigations into the president’s son.

The source also reiterated that Archer provided no evidence connecting President Joe Biden to any of his son’s foreign business dealings.

After the interview concluded, a second source told CNN that Archer did affirm to the committee that Hunter Biden was selling the “illusion” of access to his father, but later clarified that the president’s son was actually selling the illusion of access to Washington, DC, and knowledge of how it worked.

Yeah but the Magats all got their marching orders and are out in force talking about how the testimony was totally damning and a smoking gun. Facts and actual testimony don't matter to them, it's all about the "illusion" of corruption that matters. SO FauxNews viewers no doubt think the case is all but wrapped up and impeachment is imminent.

[Grifman]

Heh, what tools:

[malchior]

Hunter Biden's plea deal falls apart and now the US Attorney has been elevated to a special counsel.

[Octavious]

Woo perfect misdirection material. F Hunter though. What a tool bag.

[Grifman]

Lyndsey Graham continues to find a way to sink lower:

[waitingtoconnect]

Woo perfect misdirection material. F Hunter though. What a tool bag.

If Hunter was not the son of a sitting president he’d be in jail for cocaine possession alone.

He needs to be in jail. For the sake of democracy the democrats need to stop defending him.

Also if he was my son I’d never as a medium level federal contractor pass any background check to get national security info due to so much possibility for blackmail and damage. Why is his father any different?

To be clear though this is all vanilla politics like the old days. none of this matches the republicans and trump. from the DNC hack, which to my mind matches Watergate to the coup attempt to grrrymandering the Supreme Court and states like Ohio and Wisconsin.

[Isgrimnur]

Hunter Biden hit with federal charges for evading tax

The Department of Justice on Thursday filed new criminal charges against U.S. President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, accusing him of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes while spending millions of dollars on a lavish lifestyle.

Hunter Biden, 53, was hit with three felony and six misdemeanor tax offenses, according to an indictment filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

He faces up to 17 years in prison if convicted. The Justice Department said its investigation into Biden is ongoing.
...
Hunter Biden's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said in statement that his client had repaid his taxes in full, accusing U.S. Special Counsel David Weiss, who is leading the probe into Hunter Biden, of reneging on a previous agreement and political bias.

[Octavious]

We're going to end up with Trump in office because Biden's son is an idiot. So we have that going for us.

[GreenGoo]

We're going to end up with Trump in office because Biden's son is an idiot. So we have that going for us.

And her emails. Don't forget about those emails.

[Zarathud]

Hunter is an idiot whose taxes were eventually paid. Trump’s tax shenanigans are so much worse — but he was the a president, not a president’s son. Makes no sense.

[Pyperkub]

Woo perfect misdirection material. F Hunter though. What a tool bag.

If Hunter was not the son of a sitting president he’d be in jail for cocaine possession alone.

He needs to be in jail. For the sake of democracy the democrats need to stop defending him.

Also if he was my son I’d never as a medium level federal contractor pass any background check to get national security info due to so much possibility for blackmail and damage. Why is his father any different?

To be clear though this is all vanilla politics like the old days. none of this matches the republicans and trump. from the DNC hack, which to my mind matches Watergate to the coup attempt to grrrymandering the Supreme Court and states like Ohio and Wisconsin.

Psst. Democrats are not defending Hunter Biden (hell, read the post you quoted as evidence). They ARE fighting (and mostly disproving) all the political attempts to make this about his father tho.

[Alefroth]

We're going to end up with Trump in office because Biden's son is an idiot. So we have that going for us.

If Trump wins, I don't think Hunter will have played a role. Will anybody that wasn't voting for Trump be swayed by this?

[Unagi]

The way the Hunter story could play a role would be in making (D) voters grow disenchanted with the Democrat party and just not showing up to vote in the numbers needed, where it also helps keep Trump/GOP voters on the hook and perhaps more likely to show up than if there was nothing in the news.

I'm not saying it will or won't end up playing a meaningful role, just saying it's not about swaying an independent jackalope into a GOP voter.

[Pyperkub]

We're going to end up with Trump in office because Biden's son is an idiot. So we have that going for us.

If Trump wins, I don't think Hunter will have played a role. Will anybody that wasn't voting for Trump be swayed by this?

It does two things - it keeps Trump voters involved and ready to vote, even if they have some questions about Trump corruption.

It also serves to turn off Biden voters - will they still vote? Or will they just say they are done with politics? We're seeing that effect publicly with regards to the Middle East conflict right now.

[Unagi]

[Carpet_pissr]

I feel confident that our high information voting population will easily be able to discern the difference between malfeasance by a candidate on one side, vs. malfeasance by a candidate's son on the other.

[Kraken]

We're going to end up with Trump in office because Biden's son is an idiot. So we have that going for us.

If Trump wins, I don't think Hunter will have played a role. Will anybody that wasn't voting for Trump be swayed by this?

It does two things - it keeps Trump voters involved and ready to vote, even if they have some questions about Trump corruption.

It also serves to turn off Biden voters - will they still vote? Or will they just say they are done with politics? We're seeing that effect publicly with regards to the Middle East conflict right now.

Three things. It also reinforces the opinion of low-information and non-voters that "eh, they're all a bunch of crooks."

[Pyperkub]

We're going to end up with Trump in office because Biden's son is an idiot. So we have that going for us.

If Trump wins, I don't think Hunter will have played a role. Will anybody that wasn't voting for Trump be swayed by this?

It does two things - it keeps Trump voters involved and ready to vote, even if they have some questions about Trump corruption.

It also serves to turn off Biden voters - will they still vote? Or will they just say they are done with politics? We're seeing that effect publicly with regards to the Middle East conflict right now.

Three things. It also reinforces the opinion of low-information and non-voters that "eh, they're all a bunch of crooks."

That was part of the point about point 1, but these days maybe it needs to be called out more.

[waitingtoconnect]

We're going to end up with Trump in office because Biden's son is an idiot. So we have that going for us.

And her emails. Don't forget about those emails.

And Obama starting world war 2.

Anyhow if trump wins - a lot of democrats and rinos are going to jail. Even if they have done nothing wrong.

[GreenGoo]

If they start jailing people without a trial, or even with a kangaroo court, there better be riots.

But I don't think it's going to happen (riots or jail). Just more gerrymandering and court packing until dems have so little power that there's no need to jail them.

[Holman]

There was some weird bullshit pseudo-scandal in RW media today about "Joe Biden sneaking Hunter into the White House!!"

Apparently the smoking gun was journalist video of some members of the Biden family (including what looked like at least one young grandchild) stepping off of Marine One when it landed on the White House grounds. Since journalists had not been notified of this holiday-period family visit, it obviously proves criminality and Communism.

[Alefroth]

Add it to the impeachment theater.

[raydude]

If they start jailing people without a trial, or even with a kangaroo court, there better be riots.

But I don't think it's going to happen (riots or jail). Just more gerrymandering and court packing until dems have so little power that there's no need to jail them.

Given the stories about abortion rights I don't think there is any bottom to their needless cruelty, so yes, jail time even when unnecessary.

[GreenGoo]

If they start jailing people without a trial, or even with a kangaroo court, there better be riots.

But I don't think it's going to happen (riots or jail). Just more gerrymandering and court packing until dems have so little power that there's no need to jail them.

Given the stories about abortion rights I don't think there is any bottom to their needless cruelty, so yes, jail time even when unnecessary.

My comment was in reference to Reps jailing Dems if the Reps win the next election.

[malchior]

I'll give him credit for taking it to them and making it obvious this is just theater by upstaging them. This is the second time he has sat in the room while they complained he wouldn't testify.

[El Guapo]

Wait, is that a contempt resolution against him on the ground that he wouldn't testify?

[malchior]

Wait, is that a contempt resolution against him on the ground that he wouldn't testify?

Correct. They are insisting he do it behind closed doors so he has shown up twice to show up at hearings to talk about his "contempt" for being unwilling to testify. Probably partially as a 'fuck you' but also partially a legal strategy to reduce risk that any contempt referral would stick.

Footage of their deep seriousness:

[hepcat]

I'm no fan of Hunter, but I do love that he's routinely schooling the GOP.

[Octavious]

If it wasn't for that idiot they would have pretty much nothing to hound Biden about. I mean sure they will make crap up, but he's the biggest issue Joe has. Showing up was a smart move.

[Skinypupy]

OK, this is hilarious. All the news networks cut away from her screeching to follow him as well.

[hepcat]

The GOP: 9 out of 10 Karens Approve.

edit: oof, the optics on this one are not good

Moskowitz: Let's vote. Let's take a vote. Who wants to hear from hunter right now today? Anyone? Come on. Who wants to hear from hunter? No one. So I'm a visual learner. And the visual is clear, nobody over there wants to hear from the witness.

[Alefroth]

I'll give him credit for taking it to them and making it obvious this is just theater by upstaging them. This is the second time he has sat in the room while they complained he wouldn't testify.

"Do you regret involving your dad in your business?" Gotta be a Fox or Newsmax reporter.

[El Guapo]

Wait, is that a contempt resolution against him on the ground that he wouldn't testify?

Correct. They are insisting he do it behind closed doors so he has shown up twice to show up at hearings to talk about his "contempt" for being unwilling to testify. Probably partially as a 'fuck you' but also partially a legal strategy to reduce risk that any contempt referral would stick.

Footage of their deep seriousness:

Amazing. And yeah, I have to think that essentially eliminates the risk of him being prosecuted for contempt on these grounds. He's...willing to testify. Did they issue a subpoena requiring him to testify behind closed doors, or something?

[Unagi]

Yes.