Octopus Overlords

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.

Octavious wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 2:11 pm And for the record I think this deal stinks to high heaven and the judge is right to ask for more information.

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.

Grifman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 10:18 pm 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.

Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2023 3:36 pm Woo perfect misdirection material. F Hunter though. What a tool bag.

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 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:53 pm We're going to end up with Trump in office because Biden's son is an idiot. So we have that going for us.

waitingtoconnect wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2023 5:20 am

Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2023 3:36 pm 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.

Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:53 pm We're going to end up with Trump in office because Biden's son is an idiot. So we have that going for us.

Alefroth wrote:

Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:53 pm 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?

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 4:45 pm

Alefroth wrote:

Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:53 pm 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.

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 5:27 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 4:45 pm

Alefroth wrote:

Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:53 pm 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."

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 1:07 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:53 pm 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.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 3:59 pm 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.

raydude wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 5:53 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 3:59 pm 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.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 11:51 am Wait, is that a contempt resolution against him on the ground that he wouldn't testify?

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.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 11:28 am 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.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 12:04 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 11:51 am 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: