Whoops! I thought I posted this an hour ago. I even updated it since then.
In other words, Hunter Biden's lawyers allege what everyone knows actually happened, did happen.
Dr. Guy P. Benson, Ph.D. in virology and whatever else is trending on twitter this week:
When Hunter Biden's sweetheart plea deal cratered in open court late last month, the First Son's lawyers appeared to be caught off guard by prosecutors' response to a question posed by the judge. The DOJ was forced to attest that no, the agreement forged with opposing counsel did not shield their client from future charges on matters such as FARA violations. Hunter's stunned attorneys insisted this was not what had been discussed, strongly suggesting that the prosecution had indeed included an even more general future immunity clause into the already-controversial deal.
If that assurance was suddenly off the table -- after the judge asked awkward questions about it -- then the pact was dead, they said. Hunter pleaded not guilty to minimal charges and the proceedings moved toward a trial. A trial for what, though? As longtime federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy has noted on several occasions, prosecutors never obtained a grand jury indictment against Hunter Biden, summarizing their allegations, the evidence gathered, etc. Why not? He suggests the document would have looked awful when compared with the bare-minimum charges actually filed, and that indictment filings would have paused the clock on statutes of limitation expirations. One of the DOJ's preferred pro-defendant tools in this case has been to allow those deadlines to run out on a number of serious felony charges, for no apparent reason other than to assist the supposed target of the investigation. Said target, of course, is the son of the President of the United States, to whom the Justice Department answers.
From the Democrat Party newsletter, the NY Times:
Government lawyers said in court papers on Friday that they and Mr. Biden were at an impasse over plea negotiations and that no agreement had been reached. Under the deal, Mr. Biden would plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and enroll in the diversion program, which would have allowed him to avert prosecution on a gun charge. But in the filing late Sunday, Mr. Biden rebutted the prosecutors' claim, saying that he had signed the agreement in court last month and that he planned to abide by it...Mr. Clark, in a three-page response to the government's motion to scrap the entire deal, accused Mr. Weiss of deciding to "renege on the previously agreed-upon plea agreement." The part of the deal that included the gun diversion agreement -- which included a broad grant of immunity from prosecution on any possible crimes that have been investigated, including the tax charges -- had been signed by prosecutors and was therefore "binding" and still "in effect," Mr. Clark wrote, along with Mr. Lowell.
The lawyers for the president's son say they'd extracted an exceptionally generous and mild agreement from prosecutors that included "a broad grant" of future immunity on any "possible crimes" that had been investigated, per the New York Times description.
Yes, the deal was made, it just couldn't be made explicit publicly. When the judge pulled the bandage off of that oozing sore, prosecutors lied to her face and claimed that no such deal was made.
Update:
This is interesting: prosecutors don't deny that there were additional promises made to Hunter Biden. They claim only that these promises are "irrelevant" because the deal was never formally entered into.
Techno Fog
@Techno_Fog
The Govt rejects claims from Hunter Biden that they made promises outside the scope of the plea agreement -
Any prior promises to Hunter are "irrelevant" to the plea.
Also: the Diversion Agreement "never took effect"
This is essentially a confession. If your wife accuses you of adultery, if you're innocent of the charge, you don't say "that's irrelevant." You just f*cking say it didn't happen.
"That's irrelevant" means "Yes it's true, but I reject your demands on other grounds."