What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Obviously since the judge didn't accept the plea deal, the justice system is weaponized against liberals. Duh.
 
fishonjazz said:
Nope the judge rejected the plea deal.
Click to expand...
That is wrong. At least listen to your own sources. The judge did not reject the plea deal.

You posted this video which I am going to cue to the 20 second mark which puts the judges quote on the screen that she could not accept or reject the plea agreement. What the judge did was stay the proceedings until the prosecution and defense could reach a deal.


The prosecution and defense have to reach a deal because Hunter Biden's lawyers withdrew from the old agreement.

That prompted Chris Clark, an attorney for Biden, to say: "As far as I'm concerned, the plea agreement is null and void" -- stirring the courtroom into audible gasps.

abc7ny.com

'Rip it up': Inside the dramatic unraveling of Hunter Biden's plea deal

For the better part of three hours, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika scrutinized nearly every facet of the plea deal -- prompting shrugs, audible exhales and frantic glances.
abc7ny.com abc7ny.com
Click to expand...

It is technically correct to say the judge did not accept the deal, because there was no deal to accept, but it is false to say the judge rejected the deal because she did not. Biden's lawyer Chris Clark rejected the deal which forced the judge to stay proceedings until the two sides were in agreement on a new deal.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
That is wrong. At least listen to your own sources. The judge did not reject the plea deal.

You posted this video which I am going to cue to the 20 second mark which puts the judges quote on the screen that she could not accept or reject the plea agreement. What the judge did was stay the proceedings until the prosecution and defense could reach a deal.


The prosecution and defense have to reach a deal because Hunter Biden's lawyers withdrew from the old agreement.



It is technically correct to say the judge did not accept the deal, because there was no deal to accept, but it is false to say the judge rejected the deal because she did not. Biden's lawyer Chris Clark rejected the deal which forced the judge to stay proceedings until the two sides were in agreement on a new deal.
Click to expand...

You will have to take it up with google and all the media outlets saying things like

Defense attorney explains why judge refused Hunter Biden's plea deal​

and

Judge refuses to accept Hunter Biden’s plea deal​

and

US District Judge Maryellen Noreika, who rejected the agreement last week.

The justice system is simply rigged against democrats. That is all there is to it.
 
And lets remember that this "weaponization of the DOJ" includes federal grand juries doing the indicting of trump.
 

Former Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was appointed by Republican President H.W. Bush, tweeted Wednesday that the indictment "is all the more tragic and regrettable because the former president has cynically chosen to inflict this embarrassing spectacle on the Nation -- and a spectacle it will be."

"Never again will the world be inspired by America's democracy in the way that it has been inspired since America's founding almost 250 years ago," Luttig added.
 

While some Republicans have denounced the indictment, suggesting it is politically motivated, others have called it fair. There is not evidence that federal or state officials handling cases against Trump have sought to target his reelection bid.
 

Now, it seems the Faceless Men (and women) of the so-called “Deep State” have saved the “best” for last.

I’m referring to the grand jury investigation that has been underway in Atlanta, Georgia, since 2021 looking into whether Trump led a coordinated campaign to unduly influence the 2020 Presidential Election in his favor.

Trump’s legal team brought upwards of 62 lawsuits on the state and federal level challenging the outcome of the 2020 Election.

All but one of them failed (and the one where they won was ancillary to their main argument that the Biden Campaign and Democratic Party engaged in vote rigging). Despite this, Trump continued pressing his “stolen election” claim in public.

And we know that a cadre of top Trump advisers forged a “war room” at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. and coordinated the initial protest against the election certification process at Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.

Several witnesses who served in Trump’s inner circle while he was president, including Cassidy Hutchinson, testified under oath that no one around the president—or Trump himself—believed that the election had been stolen. In fact, according to Hutchinson’s testimony, immediately following the announcement that Biden had won the White House, Trump had admitted he thought he had lost to Joe Biden.
 
fishonjazz said:
Several witnesses who served in Trump’s inner circle while he was president, including Cassidy Hutchinson, testified under oath that no one around the president—or Trump himself—believed that the election had been stolen. In fact, according to Hutchinson’s testimony, immediately following the announcement that Biden had won the White House, Trump had admitted he thought he had lost to Joe Biden.
Click to expand...
Unless there is a tape of Trump making that claim, that evidence is hearsay and worthless. But if worthless evidence is all they've got to get this started in time to interfere in the 2024 election then the DOJ is going to run with it.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Unless there is a tape of Trump making that claim, that evidence is hearsay and worthless. But if worthless evidence is all they've got to get this started in time to interfere in the 2024 election then the DOJ is going to run with it.
Click to expand...

Direct testimony is not hearsay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top