islander wrote:

The agreement on the gun charge was that Biden would enter into what is known as a diversion agreement under which he would not be prosecuted for that offense as long as he met certain requirements. If he did, the gun case would just go away (it is like serving probation without prosecution).. If there is a violation of the diversion agreement, the case is prosecuted. The problem was that the prosecution and defense plea agreement would have had the judge in an enforcement capacity if the prosecution thought the diversion agreement had been violated — she would decide whether it had been violated. The reason why she questioned this is because the decision to prosecute is a function of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.

The other, bigger issue was that the defense thought the plea agreement covered all offenses that could be prosecuted at that time — beyond the tax and gun charges. The prosecution thought otherwise. The USAO is still investigating Biden’s business practices in Ukraine and elsewhere. As with any plea agreement, the judge has to make sure the defendant understands and agrees to the plea. Here, it was obvious there was disagreement among the attorneys.

I raised all this because I think that Delaware judge, like Judge Mershan in the Trump trial, seemed to be doing her job as opposed to bending to political winds. I say that with the caveat that this opinion of mine is based on what I knew of each judge’s decisions as reported.

(probably more than you —  or anyone, — want or need to know. I get carried away sometimes . . .)

 steeler wrote:
Noted. I haven't followed this very closely, so appreciate the correction. Too many politicians under indictment to keep up with these days...

So was the issue that he was paying a tax fine, but getting relief from the gun charge? 

 islander wrote:
Just to clarify: the judge questioned whether the prosecution and defense were in agreement on what other criminal offenses were covered by the plea agreement. Turns out that they were not. She also questioned whether she had the authority to retain jurisdiction over what really was a deferred prosecution agreement on the gun charges. She was correct in questioning both.

 islander wrote:
The current beneficiaries of a two-tiered justice system (you try attacking a judge while under a gag order...) want you to believe they want to destroy the very system they abuse.

Plea deals are unacceptable when offered to the opposition.

I think Hunter should spend a few years in jail...and we should do the same for all gun violations going forward.

 Steely_D wrote:

He tried that, but the judge protested the agreement saying it was too lenient. Some people apparently wanted a big public trial for some reason.

 R_P wrote: 
HB 2 was tougher.  Had the so called bipartisan Senate  bill with the 5000 daily cutoff limit passed, Joe would be unable to do his 2000 or 2500 per day limit his new executive order is going to do.  The 5000 would be law eliminating the option for an executive order reducing it.

Another bad law that thankfully did not get passed.

 Steely_D wrote:

His Daddy will just pardon him.

Man, Hunter should just plead guilty in return for an appropriate sentence. Doesn’t need prison; does need rehab; and does need probation/fine.

MAGA Joe

 Red_Dragon wrote:

That’s the summary

 steeler wrote:

You know, you're talking about folks who now proudly wear t-shirts proclaiming "real men wear diapers". Trump can (and probably will) be utterly incoherent during any debate, and they will hail him as The Winner.

 rgio wrote:
I think Trump definitely has more to lose in a debate with Biden. As I have stated here before, the refrain of Trump and his supporters is and has been that Biden is so cognitively impaired that he essentially is out of it.  If that were true, it should be readily apparent to all during a debate. Trump should not only easily “win” the debate, Biden should look and sound pathetic. If true and exposed in a public debate, it would not just swing the election to Trump, it would raise 25th Amendment issues for Biden. Of course it is not true. Trump and his supporters already have their explanation for how and why the cognitively impaired Biden could hold his own with — or do better than — Trump in a debate: Joe is on performance-enhancing drugs! Yeah, that’s the ticket!

This video of two analytical psychologists discussing Trump's decline with a cognitive psychologist is pretty interesting. Yes it's long but the clinical psychologist Vince Greenwood shows up at around 26:30 and compares Biden's "aging brain" with Trump's dementia. 

AGING AND DEMENTIA are not the same.  Greenwood states that Biden is showing normal signs of aging but Trump is showing worsening signs of dementia, assertions that he backs up by analysis of their public statements. 

Again, this is long—about an hour. But the meat of the discussion starts with Greenwood. If you're so inclined, you can speed up the video to watch it more quickly. 

 steeler wrote:
I think people have forgotten how incoherent he is.  They aren't watching his rallies... they aren't seeing him on the news unless they watch Fox/conservative media.  His post-convention return to mainstream media is going to generate a lot of PTSD.  

He thinks that Biden is going to look too old, but I think Trump is setting himself up for a major fall if they do debate.  Joe isn't going to win any awards for debating, but if the mics go off and he gets a chance to show that he's much more of a statesman and leader than Trump, the debates could swing things more for Biden than for Trump (IMO).  We'll see....maybe.

Interior Dept staffer becomes first Jewish Biden appointee to publicly resign over war in Gaza

 rgio wrote:
After the debate between these two in 2020 ended, the one in which Trump would not stop talking/babbling, the video switched to a stunned CNN panel and Dana Bash blurted: “That was a shit show.” 

 Steely_D wrote:
He wants nothing to do with the issues... he just wants to complain.  

Moderator:  President Trump, how will you deal with inflation? 

Trump:  "We've got a great big beautiful plan that is going to lower prices on everything... it'll be amazing... you'll see... only I know how to do this... it'll be amazing".

Moderator: "When will we see the details"?

Trump: "We're going to tell everyone how we're gonna do it in 2 weeks, but we don't wanna give away everything, because we don't want to tell Chi-Nah what we're up to... but it'll be amazing... and prices will be lower than ever.  How we let the Soros-funded, radical democrats ruin this place is beyond me... but we'll fix it... and make America great again... it'll be amazing".

He has no plan.  He hasn't a clue.  All he talked about was the stock market...which is at historic highs.  Unemployment... historic lows.  The US economy has grown at twice the rate of the other G7 countries in the past year... Joe just has to deliver some context and facts.  Things under Trump the past 4 years would have been worse.  He is reactionary and ignores advice.

I think the non-MAGA folks have forgotten how terrible his briefings, press conferences, and announcements can be.   They'll remember by November.

 rgio wrote:

He’s already saying he wants the crowd. He’ll find a reason. “Oh, I hear my mother calling me.”

 Steely_D wrote:
He's debating a corpse.  Just ask him.  Prep...for what?   If we know anything, it's that Donnie doesn't do prep, and he doesn't read.

We'll see if he agrees to the no-crowd, mic shutoff rules.  We're a long way from the debate stage.

 rgio wrote:

So now the failed real estate salesman, unwanted for President by most Americans when he failed at a second term, has to juggle all his court battles (he shouldn’t have any, right?) as well as his campaign, as well as - now - “prep” however he does it, for these two debates. His team must look like a stepped on anthill.