Under the proposed plea agreement and diversion agreement, Biden would plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and would be able to avoid punishment on a felony gun charge if he stayed out of trouble for two years. But at a tense court hearing, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika questioned the constitutionality of the diversion agreement and refused to sign off on the deal, at least for now. Lawyers are due back in court in several weeks to revisit the issue.
Definitely a Trump appointed judge, but my understanding is this was more on the attorneys not understanding what the agreement was and the Judge discovering while doing their due diligence on the plea deal. Hunter’s attorneys are likely to blame here.
But the judge’s questioning did reveal a disagreement over whether the agreement on the tax charges was linked to a gun charge against Biden. Prosecutors said it wasn’t; Biden’s team thought it was - and they repeatedly argued about it in open court.
Appointed by Trump, but Biden has considered her a potential candidate for a Federal judgeship. Also there’s this:
“In 2023, Noreika presided over a case involving John Paul Mac Isaac. Noreika ruled against Mac Isaac, who was Hunter Biden’s laptop repairman, in his defamation lawsuit against CNN, Politico, and Hunter Biden.[8][9]”
From what I’ve heard/read (this story is so fucking worthless. If we’re going after rich nepo kids Hunter is on that list but not the top. It definitely doesn’t deserve this much attention…) the judge was, in effect, actually helping Hunter here. The law he was agreeing to plea guilty to in order to get this agreement is (according to this judge) untested and possibly unconstitutional. Her “concern” was he might be pleading guilty and sentenced and then held to that agreement (legally speaking) even if that law is thrown out. She wants to make sure Hunter understands if the law is thrown out he is still legally required to abide by any agreements made using that law… but the judge is also kind of recognizing that this sets up a situation where Hunter or the court are entering into an agreement willingly around a law they both don’t think will stand for much longer… something like that. Not a lawyer, etc.
Long story short, he’s probably still gonna get a light or favorable sentence compared to the minimums/what was charged/what evidence that exists of his crimes. It might even be more favorable. Hard to tell. (most of his crimes that can be proven are drug usage which should not be a crime which is why I don’t really care. Yes he obviously received money, jobs, perks based on his last name but in comparison to like Jared Kushner… I mean…)
Someone remind me who appointed that judge.
Definitely a Trump appointed judge, but my understanding is this was more on the attorneys not understanding what the agreement was and the Judge discovering while doing their due diligence on the plea deal. Hunter’s attorneys are likely to blame here.
How are his attorneys to blame?
The article linked doesn’t give a good recount of what transpired in the courtroom.
From the Axios article
Okay, fair enough.
Appointed by Trump, but Biden has considered her a potential candidate for a Federal judgeship. Also there’s this:
“In 2023, Noreika presided over a case involving John Paul Mac Isaac. Noreika ruled against Mac Isaac, who was Hunter Biden’s laptop repairman, in his defamation lawsuit against CNN, Politico, and Hunter Biden.[8][9]”
From what I’ve heard/read (this story is so fucking worthless. If we’re going after rich nepo kids Hunter is on that list but not the top. It definitely doesn’t deserve this much attention…) the judge was, in effect, actually helping Hunter here. The law he was agreeing to plea guilty to in order to get this agreement is (according to this judge) untested and possibly unconstitutional. Her “concern” was he might be pleading guilty and sentenced and then held to that agreement (legally speaking) even if that law is thrown out. She wants to make sure Hunter understands if the law is thrown out he is still legally required to abide by any agreements made using that law… but the judge is also kind of recognizing that this sets up a situation where Hunter or the court are entering into an agreement willingly around a law they both don’t think will stand for much longer… something like that. Not a lawyer, etc.
Long story short, he’s probably still gonna get a light or favorable sentence compared to the minimums/what was charged/what evidence that exists of his crimes. It might even be more favorable. Hard to tell. (most of his crimes that can be proven are drug usage which should not be a crime which is why I don’t really care. Yes he obviously received money, jobs, perks based on his last name but in comparison to like Jared Kushner… I mean…)
Thanks for the informed take!