such misrepresentations of what actually occurred.

“That would be the David Weiss who refused to agree to
that provision in the plea agreement, which only became fully understood by Hunter’s team at the court hearing, which is largely why the deal collapsed. In other words, the opposite of what you’re claiming.”

David Weiss signed off on the proposed plea agreement with the wording “any federal crimes encompassed” which would have given Biden blanket immunity for other federal crimes not related to the illegal gun charges. Further, toward the end of the agreement was the statement “The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes…”. It was not until Judge Norieka explicitly discussed the wording in that agreement that the DOJ claimed they were not giving Hunter Biden blanket immunity although the agreement states otherwise. The wording speaks for itself and to argue that Weiss did not include that blanket immunity or it was not his intention is either dishonest or an assertion that Weiss and his prosecutors are incompetent.

“Furthermore, your claim that the pretrial diversion agreement was ‘unprecedented’ is also total bullshit. That agreement applied only to the gun charge. Nobody - NOBODY - has ever been prosecuted for lying about drug use on a gun application given the same set of circumstances as Hunter’s. Namely…
- first such offense
- only one gun
- gun never used in a crime
So the diversion agreement actually was harsher than normal for that crime in those circumstances, as it still left open the possibility of prosecution if Hunter didn’t comply with the terms.”

Congratulations. I’ve seen my share of complete and total horseshit on this board but you may well have made to to the top of the heap.

Judge Norieka specifically asked prosecuting attorney Wise if he had ever seen a similar non-prosecution agreement in a pre-trial diversion agreement where the defendant is given immunity for crimes not related to the charges in the case. Her exact question was “Have you ever seen a diversion agreement that is so broad that it encompasses crimes in another case?” Wise stated he HAD NOT. Your attempt to distort the facts that the terms of diversion agreement were actually harsher than normal is a major departure from the truth and reality. Providing blanket immunity in a pretrial diversion agreement was in fact an unprecedented sweetheart deal.

“Lastly, contrary to MAGA myth, the judge’s primary objection to the plea deal was that it made her responsible for monitoring Hunter’s compliance with the diversion agreement terms. Apparently that was a highly unusual proposal and she didn’t have the means to do it. She did NOT reject the deal because it was too lenient on Hunter.”

Um, not quite. Judge Norieka’s concern was that the plea deal would make her responsible for monitoring the terms of an unprecedented diversion agreement with terms that extended beyond the scope of the charges brought in the gun charge.

I’m not exactly sure where you are getting your information but that level of revisionist history is pretty disturbing.

[Post edited by Hoos Operator at 12/15/2023 3:49PM]