Hunter

[Beebs52]

On different sites, etc
https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaki ... clerk-cmc/

[silverscreenselect]

Followup from the original Daily Mail article that broke the story. It should be easy to verify from the clerk's office.

Just before the deadline, Hunter's Latham & Watkins lawyer Matthew Salerno filed a response claiming the incident was down to 'an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication.' 'The matter under consideration appears to stem from an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication between a staff member at our firm and employees of the Court. We have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is there was no misrepresentation,' Salerno wrote to Judge Noreika on Tuesday evening. He claimed that Jessica Bengels, the Latham staffer accused of pretending to be from another law firm, has a phone number which should show up as 'LATHAM' on the clerk's caller ID.

Salerno attached an affidavit from Bengels, in which she claimed she initially called a different court clerk, ‘Julia’, from her Latham phone, identified herself truthfully, but was later called back by the first clerk, Samantha. ‘At around 11.54am, another Court employee called my Latham & Watkins phone number (which I believe she knew through caller ID) to let me know she would be removing the material from the docket,’ Bengels wrote. ‘She did not ask which law firm I was affiliated with, and at no time during this call did I mention anything about my law firm affiliation.

‘I believe there may have been some confusion when Julia passed the information on to the other Court employee, resulting in a mistaken understanding that I had called from Mr. Kittila’s firm. ‘I am completely confident that I never indicated that I was calling from Mr. Kittila’s firm or that I worked with him in any way.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... night.html

[Beebs52]

Of course.

[Bob78164]

Latham is a smart firm, and this would be an enormously stupid thing to do, both because they'd obviously get caught and also because (as demonstrated by the actual course of events) it wouldn't accomplish anything other than to piss off the judge. --Bob

[tlynn78]

Latham is a smart firm, and this would be an enormously stupid thing to do, both because they'd obviously get caught and also because (as demonstrated by the actual course of events) it wouldn't accomplish anything other than to piss off the judge. --Bob

LMAO - and attorneys NEVER do anything like that...

[silverscreenselect]

Hunter Biden's plea agreement fell apart in court today and he entered a not guilty plea. That doesn't mean there is no and will be no agreement. The judge said that she couldn't accept or reject the agreement as it stood today. There are two main issues that arose during the judge's questioning of Hunter Biden.

First, he agreed to enter a diversion program which, if he successfully completed it, would result in the gun charges (a felony) being dropped. The question was who would decide if he had violated the agreement, and the judge was unwilling to step in as referee at this stage of the proceedings.

Second, the question was just how broad the tax evasion plea was. The government said at the time they announced the deal that the investigation was ongoing, but Biden's attorneys seemed to believe this plea agreement would end the case. The judge asked the prosecution specifically whether the agreement would bar them from bringing charges against Biden for being an unregistered foreign agent and they said no. Biden said he couldn't plead under those circumstances.

Now the parties go back to the drawing board to see if they can draft an agreement whose language the judge is willing to sign off on. The expected time frame on this would be 30 days or so. Two more points:

THe issue about the Republican attempt to introduce the whistleblower testimony and the possible sanctions against Biden's attorney never came up, indicating it's a dead issue. Second, I think the judge (who is a Trump appointee) wasn't out to "get" Biden. In every criminal case, the judge has a responsibility for determining is making a fully informed, knowing, voluntary guilty plea. Clearly, that wasn't the case here. But I also think the Republicans will seize on this to bolster their claims about how they somehow derailed what would have been a sweetheart deal.

[Bob78164]

Hunter Biden's plea agreement fell apart in court today and he entered a not guilty plea. That doesn't mean there is no and will be no agreement. The judge said that she couldn't accept or reject the agreement as it stood today. There are two main issues that arose during the judge's questioning of Hunter Biden.

First, he agreed to enter a diversion program which, if he successfully completed it, would result in the gun charges (a felony) being dropped. The question was who would decide if he had violated the agreement, and the judge was unwilling to step in as referee at this stage of the proceedings.

Second, the question was just how broad the tax evasion plea was. The government said at the time they announced the deal that the investigation was ongoing, but Biden's attorneys seemed to believe this plea agreement would end the case. The judge asked the prosecution specifically whether the agreement would bar them from bringing charges against Biden for being an unregistered foreign agent and they said no. Biden said he couldn't plead under those circumstances.

Now the parties go back to the drawing board to see if they can draft an agreement whose language the judge is willing to sign off on. The expected time frame on this would be 30 days or so. Two more points:

The issue about the Republican attempt to introduce the whistleblower testimony and the possible sanctions against Biden's attorney never came up, indicating it's a dead issue. Second, I think the judge (who is a Trump appointee) wasn't out to "get" Biden. In every criminal case, the judge has a responsibility for determining is making a fully informed, knowing, voluntary guilty plea. Clearly, that wasn't the case here. But I also think the Republicans will seize on this to bolster their claims about how they somehow derailed what would have been a sweetheart deal.

I agree with your assessment of the judge's rulings. They seemed, at a minimum, well within the scope of her discretion. A different judge might have ruled differently but her rulings (as reported in the press) didn't seem unreasonable to me.

The reports I've seen say that the judge issued an Order to Show Cause within 30 days why she should accept the plea agreement as originally drafted. That suggests to me that there's still at least some chance the original plea agreement can be ratified. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Someday you will run out of ridiculous excuses. Then where will you be?

[tlynn78]

Someday you will run out of ridiculous excuses. Then where will you be?

Desperately clinging to "Orange man bad"

How long do you suppose before they bury Biden along with all the fallout?

[flockofseagulls104]

The Biden coverup is making Watergate look like amateur hour.

[silverscreenselect]

Someday you will run out of ridiculous excuses. Then where will you be?

Keep wishing, Flock. I have a feeling that tomorrow you'll be whistling a different tune.

[silverscreenselect]

The Biden coverup is making Watergate look like amateur hour.

A coverup presupposes you have something to cover up.

[tlynn78]

The Biden coverup is making Watergate look like amateur hour.

A coverup presupposes you have something to cover up.

Seriously? The depth of y'alls delusion is astounding.
So, just to get it straight, the Bidens are as pure as Hunter's cocaine? No wrong-doing at all? No quid pro quo? No influence peddling? Genuinely curious how deep the commitment to ignorance goes.

[Bob78164]

So, just to get it straight, the Bidens are as pure as Hunter's cocaine? No wrong-doing at all? No quid pro quo? No influence peddling? Genuinely curious how deep the commitment to ignorance goes.

I'm wondering. What actual evidence do you have that President Biden knew anything about how Hunter may have been using the family name?

What actual evidence do you have that President Biden has ever exercised political influence to support one of Hunter's projects?

I'll settle for evidence comparable to the evidence that Donny abused the powers of his office to try to blackmail the president of Ukraine into manufacturing evidence against his political opponent. --Bob

[tlynn78]

So, just to get it straight, the Bidens are as pure as Hunter's cocaine? No wrong-doing at all? No quid pro quo? No influence peddling? Genuinely curious how deep the commitment to ignorance goes.

I'm wondering. What actual evidence do you have that President Biden knew anything about how Hunter may have been using the family name?

What actual evidence do you have that President Biden has ever exercised political influence to support one of Hunter's projects?

I'll settle for evidence comparable to the evidence that Donny abused the powers of his office to try to blackmail the president of Ukraine into manufacturing evidence against his political opponent. --Bob

Let's start with Biden's boast, from his own lips, about getting the guy investigating Burisma fired under threat of withholding money. The rest we'll see when Biden is impeached.
Additionally, I feel like an attorney should know this, but direct testimony is, by definition, evidence.

[Bob78164]

So, just to get it straight, the Bidens are as pure as Hunter's cocaine? No wrong-doing at all? No quid pro quo? No influence peddling? Genuinely curious how deep the commitment to ignorance goes.

I'm wondering. What actual evidence do you have that President Biden knew anything about how Hunter may have been using the family name?

What actual evidence do you have that President Biden has ever exercised political influence to support one of Hunter's projects?

I'll settle for evidence comparable to the evidence that Donny abused the powers of his office to try to blackmail the president of Ukraine into manufacturing evidence against his political opponent. --Bob

Let's start with Biden's boast, from his own lips, about getting the guy investigating Burisma fired under threat of withholding money. The rest we'll see when Biden is impeached.
Additionally, I feel like an attorney should know this, but direct testimony is, by definition, evidence.

You mean the guy the Obama Administration wanted fired because HE WASN'T TOUGH ENOUGH on corruption? The guy who'd already finished investigating Burisma? That guy?

And if the House does impeach President Biden (I think enough Republicans will break ranks to prevent that from happening), I'm guessing that'll play about as well politically as it did when the House impeached President Clinton. Except that at least in the case of President Clinton is was about something that actually happened (though having nothing to do with abuse of power), so in this case I suspect the political blowback from voters will be even more extreme.

I just wanted to confirm that you're continuing to live in a fantasy world. Thanks for playing. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

What actual evidence do you have that President Biden knew anything about how Hunter may have been using the family name?

What actual evidence do you have that President Biden has ever exercised political influence to support one of Hunter's projects?

That's the key right there. Hunter Biden has never been a government official. He can't be "bribed" as that term is used legally, by the payment of money from foreign or domestic sources. It is not a crime for him to solicit or receive payment in exchange for using his "influence" with his father. Every lobbyist in Washington does the exact same thing. The plea agreement which is in limbo was cut back substantially from what Biden's attorneys apparently thought it was. It now covers tax, drug, and firearm charges from 2014 to 2019. I believe that there is a 10-year statute of limitation on collecting taxes, so anything Biden did or didn't do in 2013 would be barred by the statute of limitations. And if he received under-the-table payment from anyone in 2014 or later, the immunity deal would cover that.

The main thing that the plea deal would not protect Hunter from is failing to register as a foreign agent if that could be charged or proved. That's the investigation that is apparently ongoing.

If Joe Biden as an elected official used his influence on behalf of Hunter, that would be a crime. But there's been no evidence of that.

[silverscreenselect]

Someday you will run out of ridiculous excuses. Then where will you be?

Keep wishing, Flock. I have a feeling that tomorrow you'll be whistling a different tune.

I'll be the first to admit when I was half wrong.

They didn't indict Trump in the January 6 case today as I thought they would. But they did add three more charges in the documents case, including two counts of obstructing justice by deleting Mar-a-Lago surveillance videos. They also added a third defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago who helped Walt Nauta move documents around. I've got a feeling he's going to be flipping real soon.

[tlynn78]

Someday you will run out of ridiculous excuses. Then where will you be?

Keep wishing, Flock. I have a feeling that tomorrow you'll be whistling a different tune.

I'll be the first to admit when I was half wrong.

They didn't indict Trump in the January 6 case today as I thought they would. But they did add three more charges in the documents case, including two counts of obstructing justice by deleting Mar-a-Lago surveillance videos. They also added a third defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago who helped Walt Nauta move documents around. I've got a feeling he's going to be flipping real soon.

Damn. Too bad Trump didn't use BleachBit and hammers.