Liberal Forum

Beekeeper » 26 Jul 2023, 7:31 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 7:31 am

I wouldn't be surprised to see Hunty's little plea deal get tossed by the Judge, him get some actual prison time, and his attorney's perhaps disbarred.

Little do they realize, they don't have a "favorable" judge any longer as by all accounts, she is one pissed off Judge.

      You called it as far as the Plea being tossed.. Nice job...
Now let's see if the little scumbag actually gets banged-up for some jail time.. 

golfboy » 26 Jul 2023, 8:09 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 8:09 pm

The DoJ tried to slip through blanket immunity for all of Hunter's crimes in this plea agreement.
Even the NY Slimes had to report it:

why would they do that?

golfboy » 26 Jul 2023, 7:25 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 7:25 pm

Evidently they tried to give Hunter complete immunity from all his crimes...
Amazing.

It was actually just the opposite. This plea deal would NOT have ended any ongoing investigations which caused Hunty's attorney to say "NO".

The DOJ wanted that so that they didn't have but ONE answer to Congressional investigations of the Bidens- "It's an ongoing investigation".

Bruce » 26 Jul 2023, 11:22 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 11:22 pm

The sound of silence from the judge about Hunter’s lawyers committing major felonies against the administration of Justice by impersonating an opposing counsel was deafening.

Instead she was very concerned the government had presented her a gun case with no proof a crime occurred, and further that the defendant must receive a complete resolution of all crimes known to the government before she would allow Hunter to accept the deal.
 
The concept of a plea bargain, is the defendant is assured the deal is for real crimes, and he won’t be charged later on for crimes they could charge today.

 A Trump judge just saved Biden’s son from a raw deal from a Trump prosecutor.

YOU **** IDIOT!!

The judges CONCERN was that the SENTENCE had ZERO PRECEDENT when ALL OTHER PEOPLE COMMITTING THIS SAME CRIME ARE SITTING IN PRISON!! A GUILTY PLEA means he ADMITS to the crime. The PLEA DEAL also was UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that the COURT would have to determine that should he violate the deal, if he is PROSECUTED FOR THE CRIME. The COURTS do not have that CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ****!! The ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH ONLY HAS THAT AUTHORITY!!

The paralegal was called BACK by the clerk. In her initial phone call, she had correctly identified where she worked and did not say anything different on the return call. This is all just more FAUX news from the network that invented it.

maineman » 27 Jul 2023, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 8:46 am

The paralegal was called BACK by the clerk. In her initial phone call, she had correctly identified where she worked and did not say anything different on the return call. This is all just more FAUX news from the network that invented it.

Not true.

NlggersareDumb » 27 Jul 2023, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 8:49 am

Not true.

I disagree

maineman » 27 Jul 2023, 9:09 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 9:09 am

I disagree

with what part exactly?

BuckNaked » 27 Jul 2023, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 9:11 am

with what part exactly?

the "not" part

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.’

maineman » 27 Jul 2023, 9:09 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 9:09 am

I disagree

U wrong.

maineman » 27 Jul 2023, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 9:35 am

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.’

Not true.

 
 

maineman » 27 Jul 2023, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 9:24 am

the "not" part

it’s all true?

NlggersareDumb » 27 Jul 2023, 9:37 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 9:37 am

U wrong.

U dumb

maineman » 27 Jul 2023, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 8:46 am

The paralegal was called BACK by the clerk. In her initial phone call, she had correctly identified where she worked and did not say anything different on the return call. This is all just more FAUX news from the network that invented it.

Got a LINK for that INVENTION of yours??

 

NlggersareDumb » 27 Jul 2023, 9:37 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 9:37 am

Not true.

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

Tell the daily mail.  I am sure they'd love to hear from you.

maineman » 27 Jul 2023, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 9:35 am

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.’

makes you wonder why a judge would threaten sanctions then, huh?

sunburn » 27 Jul 2023, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 12:26 pm

makes you wonder why a judge would threaten sanctions then, huh?

maybe if there were any "there" there, he would have done more than threaten, huh?

maineman » 27 Jul 2023, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023, 8:46 am

The paralegal was called BACK by the clerk. In her initial phone call, she had correctly identified where she worked and did not say anything different on the return call. This is all just more FAUX news from the network that invented it.

Yer special mainemop.   In other news...

‘Disaster’: Jonathan Turley Points To One Democrat Who ‘Demolished’ Joe Biden’s Defense

https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/26/disa ... Mq_7oFYOzA
 

BuckNaked » 26 Jul 2023, 5:33 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 5:33 am

What the **** were they thinking?

These people are convinced that the law does not apply to them.