Federal criminal investigation Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings (Update: DOJ appoints special counsel) (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their report on the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine.

Baturina is referenced in the 87-page report, which was released Wednesday, addressing her payment to Biden’s investment firm in early 2014.

“Baturina became Russia’s only female billionaire when her plastics company, Inteko, received a series of Moscow municipal contracts while her husband was mayor,” it said in providing background on the businesswoman.

The report described her involvement with Biden as “a financial relationship,” but declined to delve deeper into why the wire transfer was made.

The probe also found that Baturina sent 11 wires transfers between May and December 2015 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA, a tech startup that filed for bankruptcy in March 2019.

Nine of those 11 wire transfers were first sent to Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment firm founded by Biden and Chris Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, before being transferred to BAK USA.

Hunter Biden received $3.5M wire transfer from Russian billionaire: Senate report

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their r…

nypost.com

We all know their is massive corruption on both sides of the aisle. Here is an alleged allegation against Hunter Biden who was allegedly enriching himself because his Dad was Vice President.

 

[SaintForLife]

No, I knew her clerk made the accusation, and I suppose it makes sense for the judge to take the side of her own clerk.

Honestly, I will probably bow out of this whole conversation. It’s incredibly stupid to begin with to devote all this time to this when we have actual unprecedented stuff going on with Trump. It’s just playing into SFL’s goal to divert all the attention away from the complete scumbag that is Trump. And if he and his follows on Twitter have to make up crazy conspiracies to do so, they don’t care. I just saw this graph on Twitter and it really says it all:

You've been showed evidence of the shadiness and sweetheart deal so now you are bowing out of this conversation? Hmmmm

Que the deflections...like I'm making up the whole story out of thin air. Sure focus on Fox News. You are talking about me making up conspiracies while I showed you the judge talking about exactly what I've mentioned.

 

[SaintForLife]

It’s crazy how Republicans are going after Hunter, yet ignore the Trump family’s far more obvious corruption. While Hunter has done plenty of shady things, his actions never impacted US policy, unlike the Trumps, which are far more shady. Republicans so badly want revenge that they’ll attack Joe for being related to someone shady. They need to associate Joe with corruption to mitigate the vast corruption of their leader. Many will be fooled, but I think enough will see that Joe is relatively clean. The worst thing they’ll find is that Joe may have lied to the media. If that is a crime, most Republicans have committed crimes, and many Democrats as well for that matter.

 

[SaintForLife]

The judge definitely pushed back on the way it was structured and the prosecutor admitted it was unprecedented.. I don't understand why they wouldn't have just done it in a straightforward way, as was much needed in this case.

The only explanation that makes sense is the fix was in. That's why they tried to get it sealed by a Biden Lawyer claiming she worked for the GOP. They didn't want the public to see the deal. They tried to sneak it in on the judge by putting it in the pre-trial diversion instead of in the actual plea agreement and they didn't give the judge a copy until right before the hearing.

Just speculation, but I think the DOJ and Biden's lawyers agreed on the immunity and the DOJ only backtracked once the judge saw the immunity deal hidden in the pre-trial diversion.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

But the immunity agreement should have been in the Plea deal instead of the pre-trial Diversion. It's never been done like that. Why do you think it happened that way? Why did they fail to give a judge a copy of the immunity deal until right before they started the hearing? Why did the Biden lawyer claim she worked for the GOP so they could get it sealed? So they could hide the sweetheart deal Hunter got.

There was NO IMMUNITY DEAL FOR TAX OR ANY FINANCIAL CRIMES. If there was one, its contents are likely sealed in Attachment A of the Plea Deal. Closing paragraph of the Plea Deal:

13 It in further agreed by the undersigned parties that this Memorandum and Exhibit 1 -together with sealed Attachment A - supersedes all prior promises, representations, and statements of the parties; that this Memorandum may be modified only in writing signed by all the parties; and that any and all promises, representations, and statements made prior to or after this Memorandum are null
and void and have no effect whatsoever, unless they comport with the subsequent written modification provisions of this paragraph.

Read the hearing transcript instead of the BS your Twitter mob is feeding you. The Judge pointed out that fact that there's no immunity agreement to Biden's team, if they thought the statement in the Diversion Agreement for the gun charge covered anything other than the gun charge, that's on them. One has nothing to do with the other.

Poor wording by the prosecution has lead the Judge to rightly question the language. I would make the argument that the prosecution attempted to secure a guilty plea for tax charges that exceeded what they could prove in court.

 

[MT15]

The only explanation that makes sense is the fix was in. That's why they tried to get it sealed by a Biden Lawyer claiming she worked for the GOP. They didn't want the public to see the deal. They tried to sneak it in on the judge by putting it in the pre-trial diversion instead of in the actual plea agreement and they didn't give the judge a copy until right before the hearing.

Just speculation, but I think the DOJ and Biden's lawyers agreed on the immunity and the DOJ only backtracked once the judge saw the immunity deal hidden in the pre-trial diversion.

No, that is the only thing that makes sense to YOU. How would sealing anything hide it from the judge? That makes zero sense. You have a hammer and every single thing in the world looks like a nail to you.

Why is Weiss and his entire staff, Republicans all, giving Hunter a “sweetheart” deal? (they’re not, but I want to know why you THINK they are.) For what reason?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Poorly worded plea? Not quite. The Biden DOJ purposely hid the immunity agreement in the pre-trial diversion document buried in paragraph 15 instead of putting it in the Plea Agreement document. They did that so the judge could not accept or reject the immunity portion of the deal. Totally unprecedented. I believe the judge questioned if it was even constitutional

Thats not it. Not only did they try to hide it in the pre-trial diversion, but they didn't provide the judge a copy until right before the hearing.



Imagine that:

Hours after the hearing, Biden's team was still fuming, suggesting that Noreika seemed intent on not letting the plea agreement go forward after deliberately questioning lawyers on both sides about the terms of the deal.

https://www.axios.com/2023/07/27/rejected-plea-deal-leaves-hunter-biden-team-fuming

And here is when the confusion begins and that failure of understanding solely rest upon Biden's lawyers. From the court's transcript pg 39:

9 THE COURT: Has anyone made you any promises
10 that are not contained in the written agreement?
11 MR. CLARK: Your Honor, with the exception of
12 the Diversion Agreement --
13 THE COURT: We're not making an exception. I
14 want to know, has anyone made you any promises that are not
15 contained in the written Memorandum of Plea Agreement?
16 MR. CLARK: Yes, there are promises from the
17 government in the Diversion Agreement, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: And sir, are you relying on the
19 promises made in the Diversion Agreement in connection with
20 your agreement to plead guilty?
21 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: And if the Diversion Agreement were
23 not valid or unenforceable for any reason, would you enter
24 into the Memorandum of Plea Agreement?
25 THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

As I understand it, they were going through the questionnaire related to the tax charges at that point of the hearing, so did the Judge.

7 Paragraph 15 of the Diversion Agreement states
8 the United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden
9 outside of the terms of this agreement for any federal
10 crimes encompassed by the attached statement of facts,
11 Attachment A to the Diversion Agreement, and the statement
12 of facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea
13 Agreement filed this same day. This agreement does not
14 provide any protection against prosecution for any future
15 conduct by Biden or by any of his affiliated businesses.
16 And just so we're clear, I think you already
17 answered this, sir, but are you relying on that promise in
18 connection with your agreement to accept the Memorandum of
19 Plea Agreement and plead guilty?
20 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: If that provision were not valid or
22 not enforceable, would you accept the Memorandum of Plea
23 Agreement?
24 THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: If you had no immunity from the

1 government, perhaps even a different prosecutor and the
2 government could bring a felony tax evasion charge or drug
3 charges against you, would you still enter the plea
4 agreement and plead guilty to these tax charges?
5 THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: All right. So I need some help here
7 because you all told me this was a plea under Rule
8 11(c)(1)(B) and not (c)(1)(A), but yet I have this provision
9 that I would think is normally in a plea agreement. So tell
10 me, how do these agreements relate? Are they part of a
11 package deal?
12 MR. WISE: So, Your Honor, the United State's
13 position is that the agreements stand alone by their own
14 terms and both agreements include their last paragraph that
15 says that with this one caveat --
16 THE COURT: This is a big caveat, though, if
17 you're telling me Rule 11(c)(1)(B) doesn't give me any
18 authority to look at this, (c)(1)(A) refers to, you know,
19 having an agreement not to prosecute. That's why I'm
20 looking at this. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I
21 need to understand this.
22 MR. WISE: Sure. So Your Honor, again, our view
23 is the plea agreement stands alone. There is no charge
24 bargaining in the plea agreement, period. And that's what
25 they have agreed to. The Diversion Agreement --
42
1 THE COURT: But he would not agree, just so I
2 understand, sir, you would not agree to that plea agreement
3 if you didn't get some immunity from other charges, is that
4 right?
5 MR. CLARK: Speaking for my client, that's
6 correct, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: I didn't mean that to be a
8 rhetorical question. So you're trying to tell me that
9 that's separate, but I think -- and I understand why he's
10 saying no, I wouldn't -- that isn't separate to me, I need
11 them both.
12 MR. WISE: That's the intention with the
13 agreement he signed.
14 THE COURT: So the intention of the agreement he
15 signed was that it would be completely separate and if that
16 Diversion Agreement were not valid or unenforceable and he
17 were on the hook for other charges that he would still be
18 pleading guilty?
19 MR. WISE: That's right, because that's what the
20 final paragraph of the plea agreement says he's agreeing to,
21 that the plea agreement stands on its own without any
22 additional promises outside the four corners of that
23 agreement.
24 THE COURT: Do you guys need to talk about this
25 for a few minutes?

 

[MT15]

Yeah this doesn’t sound anything like what SFL has been posting about. Not at all.

 

[bdb13]

There was NO IMMUNITY DEAL FOR TAX OR ANY FINANCIAL CRIMES. If there was one, its contents are likely sealed in Attachment A of the Plea Deal. Closing paragraph of the Plea Deal:Read the hearing transcript instead of the BS your Twitter mob is feeding you. The Judge pointed out that fact that there's no immunity agreement to Biden's team, if they thought the statement in the Diversion Agreement for the gun charge covered anything other than the gun charge, that's on them. One has nothing to do with the other.Poor wording by the prosecution has lead the Judge to rightly question the language. I would make the argument that the prosecution attempted to secure a guilty plea for tax charges that exceeded what they could prove in court.

Paragraph 15 is the operative one the judge raised the issue with in regards to immunity (bolding the parts pertaining to this throughout the two referenced articles below):

It states that the government would "agree not to criminally prosecute Biden outside of the terms of this agreement for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached statement of facts, Attachment A to the Diversion Agreement, and the statement of facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day," the judge read in court.
...
Attachments to the deal described how, in the period from 2017-2018, Hunter Biden "continued to earn handsomely and spend wildly" the large sums of money he made from business endeavors in Ukraine, China, and Romania -- some $2.6 million in 2018 alone."These agreements are not straightforward and they contain some atypical provisions," she said. "I am not criticizing you for coming up with those, I think that you have worked hard to come up with creative ways to deal with this. But I am not in a position where I can decide to accept or reject the Plea Agreement, so I need to defer it."
...
Prosecutors included details about Hunter Biden's foreign business endeavors into the plea deal on the misdemeanor tax charges, but wrote the immunity standards into the diversion agreement -- the much-cited Paragraph 15 -- which would include "any federal crimes encompassed" in the statement of facts for the plea agreement.

New details emerge in Hunter Biden plea agreement

Details in the plea agreement negotiated between attorneys for Hunter Biden and the DOJ shed fresh light on the deal they brokered before a judge rebuffed it Wednesday.

abcnews.go.com

The judge said she couldn’t find another example of a diversion agreement so broad that it shielded the defendant from charges in a different case. Leo Wise, a prosecutor working for Weiss, told the judge he also was unaware of any such precedent.
...
The judge then pressed the prosecutors further on why the immunity provision was in the pretrial diversion agreement — which lawyers said didn’t need her sign-off — instead of in the plea deal itself. If the immunity provision had been in the plea deal, then court rules would have given her more of a role in accepting, rejecting, or deferring that plea, she said.
...
But later in the hearing, the deal hit another snag when the judge made clear that she had concerns about her role in the unusual agreement.She expressed discomfort with both the prosecution and defense asserting she had no role in deciding whether to accept the diversion agreement.Noreika suggested she was being asked to “rubber stamp” the deal.“We’re not asking the court to rubber stamp anything,” Wise insisted.“Well, it certainly sounds like it,” Noreika replied.At the same time, she added, the diversion agreement also required the court’s involvement if Biden violated its terms. Those terms included a two-year ban on using alcohol, and a requirement that he alert the authorities before any international travel. If prosecutors believed Biden violated the agreement, the deal would require them to go to court and ask a judge to make an official finding that he had done so. Only after that step could prosecutors bring charges against him.The judge said she worried this could make her a “gatekeeper” to criminal charges — possibly violating the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

Judge declines to approve Hunter Biden plea deal for now

The judge made clear that she viewed the deal between the president's son and federal prosecutors as outside the norm.

www.politico.com

It should have all been as straightforward and as usual as possible but there are multiple things there that weren't, and that doesn't seem to be in great dispute.

Given the circumstances I have a problem with that. It is what it is, this is a case involving the DOJ and the President's son and so when things seem strange in a plea agreement brought forth between the DOJ and the President's son I think it's definitely fair to look at it with scrutiny and ask why things seem different and unique here.

 

[MT15]

Given the circumstances I have a problem with that. It is what it is, this is a case involving the DOJ and the President's son and so when things seem strange in a plea agreement brought forth between the DOJ and the President's son I think it's definitely fair to look at it with scrutiny and ask why things seem different and unique here.

Every sane person I have read has no issues with what the judge did. They just aren’t out there saying it proves all these crazy conspiracy theories. Because it doesn’t.

 

[bdb13]

Every sane person I have read has no issues with what the judge did. They just aren’t out there saying it proves all these crazy conspiracy theories. Because it doesn’t.

And I'm not saying it does either.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Paragraph 15 is the operative one the judge raised the issue with in regards to immunity (bolding the parts pertaining to this throughout the two referenced articles below):

New details emerge in Hunter Biden plea agreement

Details in the plea agreement negotiated between attorneys for Hunter Biden and the DOJ shed fresh light on the deal they brokered before a judge rebuffed it Wednesday.

abcnews.go.com

Judge declines to approve Hunter Biden plea deal for now

The judge made clear that she viewed the deal between the president's son and federal prosecutors as outside the norm.

www.politico.com

It should have all been as straightforward and as usual as possible but there are multiple things there that weren't, and that doesn't seem to be in great dispute.

Given the circumstances I have a problem with that. It is what it is, this is a case involving the DOJ and the President's son and so when things seem strange in a plea agreement brought forth between the DOJ and the President's son I think it's definitely fair to look at it with scrutiny and ask why things seem different and unique here.

I just finished the whole hearing transcript and the whole para 15 thing got cleared up and it was clear by ALL parties that it pertained to the gun charge. The plea deal totally collapsed due to the likelihood the Judge would reject it because she felt the Diversion Program wasn't a fair resolution to the felony charge of making false statement on his gun purchase documentation.

The collapse begins on pg 82:

2 THE COURT: Do you disagree with any of the
3 government's factual recitations?
4 THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Mr. Clark, do you have any
6 objections or concerns with the government's recitation of
7 proof?
8 MR. CLARK: I do not, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: All right. Now at this point I
10 would normally ask Mr. Biden how he pleads, but as we've
11 already discussed, the Diversion Agreement is out there in a
12 felony case, it is cross-referenced in the Memorandum of
13 Plea Agreement. The Plea Agreement is cross-referenced in
14 the Diversion Agreement, so before I ask him how he pleads,
15 I need to understand -- well, ask him how he pleads or
16 decide if I can accept the Plea Agreement, I need to
17 understand the Diversion Agreement.
18 So the felony gun charge here is a bit unusual,
19 and we don't usually make diversion agreements public. I
20 don't usually see a diversion agreement as the parties up
21 here have hinted, but in fact you all did send it to me and
22 it is referenced in the agreement that is before me in the
23 tax case.
24 So it's a little bit unique in that I have a
25 copy of the Diversion Agreement and that the Diversion...

pg83
...1 Agreement contains what I view to be some nonstandard terms
2 like the broad immunity and a term that invokes the Court or
3 involves the Court as part of that agreement.
4 So given all that, Mr. Wise, why don't you go
5 ahead and summarize the terms of the Diversion Agreement
6 given that the parties have agreed to make it public.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23888608/transcript-of-july-26-2023-hearing.pdf

 

[SaintForLife]

Every sane person I have read has no issues with what the judge did. They just aren’t out there saying it proves all these crazy conspiracy theories. Because it doesn’t.

Why don't you post those sane people's opinions

 

[SaintForLife]

No, that is the only thing that makes sense to YOU. How would sealing anything hide it from the judge? That makes zero sense. You have a hammer and every single thing in the world looks like a nail to you.

Why is Weiss and his entire staff, Republicans all, giving Hunter a “sweetheart” deal? (they’re not, but I want to know why you THINK they are.) For what reason?

It doesn't hide it from the judge lol. It's all about hiding it from the public.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Duped again!!!

Are ANY of those guys have ANYTHING to do with Ukraine or China? NO.

 

[SaintForLife]

Duped again!!!

Are ANY of those guys have ANYTHING to do with Ukraine or China? NO.

Maybe you weren't able to read the tweet. Here's what it said:

Vice President Joe Biden meeting Hunter Biden's foreign business partners.

November 2010: Joe Biden had a sit-down meeting with Eric Schwerin - the president of Hunter's private equity firm - in the West Wing.

November 2011: Joe Biden met with Chris Heinz — a co-founder of Hunter’s private equity firm — in the West Wing.

March 2012: Joe Biden met with Andres Pastrana Arango — the former president of Colombia who Hunter was doing business with — at his personal residence.

December 2013: Hunter flew with Joe Biden aboard Air Force Two to China, where he introduced him to Jonathan Li, a Chinese businessman.

February 2014: Joe Biden had lunch with Hunter and two of Hunter’s Mexican business partners and was pictured giving them a tour of the White House.

April 2014: Joe Biden met with Devon Archer — another co-founder of Hunter’s private equity firm — in the White House a week before Archer joined the board of Burisma.

June 2014: Joe Biden met Manuel Estrella — Hunter’s Latin American business associate. After the meeting, Estrella emailed Hunter: “Hunter, I just met your father! So exciting!” Hunter replied: “I'm glad it all finally came together.”

August 2014: Pictures show Joe Biden golfing with his son, Hunter, and Devon Archer while they were both serving on the Burisma board.

April 2015: Joe Biden attended a dinner in Washington, D.C., with Hunter’s business partners from Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.

November 2015: Joe Biden hosted his son’s Mexican business partners — Carlos Slim, Miguel Aleman Velasco, and Miguel Aleman Magnani — at his personal residence.

February 2016: Biden flew Hunter and Jeff Cooper — a family business partner — to Mexico City for a business trip aboard Air Force Two.

May 2016: Joe Biden met with Eric Schwerin — the former head of Hunter’s private equity firm — for dinner in Washington, D.C.

September 2016: Joe Biden attended a fundraiser for Francis Person — a business associate of Hunter’s and a former advisor in Biden’s VP office.

May 2017: Joe Biden met with family business partner Tony Bobulinski TWICE.

June 2018: Joe Biden texted Hunter saying that he was with Jeff Cooper — a family business partner — and that Cooper wanted to “do some work” with him.

Photos, emails, text messages, and White House visitor logs CONFIRM these meetings took place. It’s not up for debate.

So why did Joe Biden lie?

 

[MT15]

This tweet is just him saying these things are true and not proving anything. And we can see the tweet there’s no need for you to post things over and over again. So when you have actual proof we can look at it. Until then this is just some anonymous dude posting crap he says is true on Twitter.