Hunter Biden Plea Deal

[Yoused]

I think Joe pardon's him on the way out the door.

Probably not. Hunter is not going to spend one day in the Greybar Hotel, and the conviction is not going to ruin his life, so there is little need.

 

[cbum]

It seems Hunter has chosen to plead Guilty in his tax case.

Well, it was an "Alford" plea... : a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence.

 

[Herdfan]

Well, it was an "Alford" plea... : a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence.

The reporting on this has been a mess, but it seems the prosecutors rejected the Alford and he entered a regular plea:

“I want to make crystal clear: The U.S. opposes an Alford plea. … Hunter Biden is not innocent, he is guilty,” Leo Wise, an attorney working for the special counsel, told the judge. “We came to court to try this case.”
After consulting with his attorneys, Biden entered a more typical plea in which he admitted guilt to all the allegations in the tax indictment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/09/05/hunter-biden-alford-guilty-plea-taxes/

Also, according to this story, he admitted all the charges were true:

“Do you agree that you committed every element of every crime?” Scarsi asked.


“Yes,” Biden responded.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/05/politics/hunter-biden-case/index.html

The CNN story also talks about how he wanted to enter the Alford plea.

 

[cbum]

Right, my comment was a news cycle behind.

 

[Renzatic]

Wait. A special prosecutor is still pushing his case against Hunter? I thought they were deemed unconstitutional?

 

[Herdfan]

Wait. A special prosecutor is still pushing his case against Hunter? I thought they were deemed unconstitutional?

Only the ones who were not confirmed by the Senate. Weiss was.

 

[Renzatic]

Only the ones who were not confirmed by the Senate. Weiss was.

Nope.

 

[Herdfan]

Nope.

Not sure what the Nope was for, but Weiss was most certainly confirmed by the Senate and Smith was not.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Not sure what the Nope was for, but Weiss was most certainly confirmed by the Senate and Smith was not.

That's what the Trump argument was, that Cannon agreed with, that she will probably be overruled on.

 

[Renzatic]

Not sure what the Nope was for, but Weiss was most certainly confirmed by the Senate and Smith was not.

I can't find anything about Weiss being appointed and/or confirmed by the senate.

 

[Herdfan]

I can't find anything about Weiss being appointed and/or confirmed by the senate.

Weiss later served as Acting U.S. Attorney for Delaware again during the administration of Donald Trump following the resignation of Oberly. He was subsequently nominated to officially fill that position, and on February 15, 2018, his nomination to be the United States Attorney was confirmed by the Senate by voice vote. He was sworn in on February 22, 2018.

David C. Weiss - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Renzatic]

David C. Weiss - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That was to act as the Attorney General of Deleware, not as special counsel. His appointment to that role came through Garland, same as Smith.

 

[Herdfan]

That was to act as the Attorney General of Deleware, not as special counsel. His appointment to that role came through Garland, same as Smith.

Correct. But Weiss was confirmed as a United States Attorney, Smith never was which is the basis of his disqualification.

At the time of his appointment, Weiss was a United States Attorney where Smith at the time of his appointment was a regular citizen not even employed by the government..

This will ultimately be decided by at least the Court of Appeals and maybe even SCOTUS. But that is the reasoning behind the argument.

 

[Renzatic]

Correct. But Weiss was confirmed as a United States Attorney, Smith never was which is the basis of his disqualification.

At the time of his appointment, Weiss was a United States Attorney where Smith at the time of his appointment was a regular citizen not even employed by the government..

This will ultimately be decided by at least the Court of Appeals and maybe even SCOTUS. But that is the reasoning behind the argument.

Once again, no. Special counsel have traditionally been pulled from outside the US government. Bill Barr's appointment of Durham, and Garland's appointment of Weiss were considered outside the norm, since they were selected from active members of the US government.

Per the regulation in question:

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).

28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Herdfan]

Yes, that is the REGULATION. It is not a law and has never been passed by Congress. The previous ICA was allowed to expire, so in 1999 AG Reno promulgated the regulation you posted.

Judge Cannon found that the Regulation violated Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 which requires principal officers to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. She also found it violated Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 related to appropriations, but I don't think that has much teeth as the DOJ has leeway in spending allocated funds.

So like I said, this has been appealed to the 11th Circuit and will probably end up at SCOTUS.

 

[Renzatic]

Yes, that is the REGULATION. It is not a law and has never been passed by Congress. The previous ICA was allowed to expire, so in 1999 AG Reno promulgated the regulation you posted.

Judge Cannon found that the Regulation violated Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 which requires principal officers to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. She also found it violated Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 related to appropriations, but I don't think that has much teeth as the DOJ has leeway in spending allocated funds.

So like I said, this has been appealed to the 11th Circuit and will probably end up at SCOTUS.

So basically we're upending decades of established law for Trump. Turns out, Elliot Richardson was breaking Constitutional law when Archibald Cox was appointed as special prosecutor during Watergate. He had been out of office for 8 years when he was chosen.

Same with Robert Mueller.

Same with Kenneth Starr.

Same with Lawrence Walsh.

Turns out that after all this time, all these people were breaking the law. Thank God for Donald Turmp and his asskissing judge to finally show us the errors of our ways, huh?

 

[Herdfan]

The previous Independent Counsel Act was allowed by Congress to expire on 6/30/99. At that point AG Reno put in the regulations you cited.

As for Starr, he acted under the previous ICA, so not relevant. But in the case of the other two, the opposing attorney’s were free to challenge the constitutional authority, but didn’t. Not sure Trump’s attorneys would have either had Thomas not brought it up in the Executive Privilege case.

But Federal & State Regulations are challenged every day in court. And with the recent Chevron Doctrine being overturned, it will be much easier to challenge them.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Well, Trump must be innocent then. Shame what they’re doing to him, it’s all one big misunderstanding, your eyes and ears deceive you. Good to know we’re finding all of these antiquated laws and loopholes out now, so we can get them all cleared up and nobody can be prosecuted when they take classified info and refuse to return them and obstruct. Or when they start calling Secretaries of States to find them votes, or have big mobs go to the Capitol to “take our country back and fight like hell”. Or make up their business records. Or sexually assault and defame people.

It’s all a witch hunt and he must be innocent. Let’s buy some sneakers, NFTs and pleather-bound bibles to show our support.

 

[Eric]

Well, Trump must be innocent then. Shame what they’re doing to him, it’s all one big misunderstanding, your eyes and ears deceive you. Good to know we’re finding all of these antiquated laws and loopholes out now, so we can get them all cleared up and nobody can be prosecuted when they take classified info and refuse to return them and obstruct. Or when they start calling Secretaries of States to find them votes, or have big mobs go to the Capitol to “take our country back and fight like hell”. Or make up their business records. Or sexually assault and defame people.

It’s all a witch hunt and he must be innocent. Let’s buy some sneakers, NFTs and pleather-bound bibles to show our support.

I don't know how any Trump defender can ever talk about law and order with a straight face again.