My understanding is that the defense thought the plea deal included immunity for all potential active and future investigations that uncover more crimes. When the DOJ said, "nah", the defense balked.
Not sure why he'd need future immunity though, since he's obviously the safest, most effective, most peaceful, and most innocent first son in the history of first sons.
immunity for all potential active and future investigations that uncover more crimes
If they were doing things by the book this wouldn't be an issue. Typically a plea deal involves the defendant fessing up to all the crimes they committed. Only then is a deal cut that decides which crimes to charge and the potential sentence. That's where Michael Cohen ran into issues. He was all too happy to fess up to his crimes when he thought could be used to go after Trump, but he wanted to keep the rest of his sleazy dealings under wraps.
Probably not, but see my other comment. I think I misspoke about fessing up to all crimes being a requirement for a plea. I think that just applies to cooperation agreements against others.
I wasn't calling you out or anything; You're right. The contingency with a plea deal that involves a confession is almost always that you detail whatever other crimes you've committed and that you can then not be prosecuted separately for them. But if you leave anything out and the authorities learn about it later, then they can prosecute you for those crimes. My point was just that if Hunter made that kind of a deal, he's so coked-up that he'd forget something that he could then later be charged with.
I assume a part of this process includes that fessing to the crimes can't be used against you later (like if the plea bargain fails)? Because otherwise, that seems like a shitty process. They can just get you to say what you're guilty of, renege on the negotiation, and then use the confession as evidence.
Now that I think of it the Michael Cohen situation was probably different. He was cooperating with the government against others (Trump) instead of just taking a plea deal, and that probably changes things. Generally a plea deal goes like this: Prosecutors indict the defendant for crimes A, B, and C. The plea deal might involve the defendant pleading guilty to A in exchange for the prosecution dropping B and C and recommending a reduced sentence. If they deal falls through they can try the defendant on all 3 crimes, which they have to prove to a jury to get a conviction of course. I think they just have to come clean if they're cooperating for a reduced sentence.
What makes this whole thing suspicious is that Hunter is still under investigation. The way it should work is that they complete the investigation and then decide what to charge the target with. Only then would a plea deal be negotiated. The fact that they're still investigating is pretty damning evidence that they just wanted to bail out Hunter and make the whole thing go away. That's where this weird ass agreement on future immunity comes from, and that's why I said that this wouldn't be an issue if they had done things by the book.
In theory they can do that but then the whole federal plea system would fall apart. Now the thing is the confessing to all crimes and getting immunity is really for someone giving states evidence, not a one off charge. This is a one off charge you don't get protection for all the things they don't know about or might come down the pipe yet.
Look at it this way. Say you're a mafia member and get caught doing X crime. You don't want to do the time. You tell the feds that you want to cooperate they're going to ask you to tell them everything you've done(that way they have leverage over you to make sure you cooperate). And then if they're going to use you as a CI you have to let them know every crime you're going to be involved in.
Now let's look at a one off situation. Say you get caught passing a fake check. You're looking at ten years but the feds say they'll give you 1 if you just take the plea. This is a one off plea deal. If they then find out you passed 9 more fake checks they can arrest you for those 9 and depending on the conditions of the plea and time that elapsed, that one year deal may now be voided. So it could be in your best interest to cop to the extra checks and show you're cooperating even if it means you might get another year or two because it could work out better for you.
Basically, everyone wants to do a plea deal because it is easier for everyone involved.
What it seems like here is Hunter wants to have his cake and eat it too. He knows there's other shit that coming down but is trying to get a pass without telling them anything.
My understanding is that the defense thought the plea deal included immunity for all potential active and future investigations that uncover more crimes. When the DOJ said, "nah", the defense balked.
Not sure why he'd need future immunity though, since he's obviously the safest, most effective, most peaceful, and most innocent first son in the history of first sons.
If they were doing things by the book this wouldn't be an issue. Typically a plea deal involves the defendant fessing up to all the crimes they committed. Only then is a deal cut that decides which crimes to charge and the potential sentence. That's where Michael Cohen ran into issues. He was all too happy to fess up to his crimes when he thought could be used to go after Trump, but he wanted to keep the rest of his sleazy dealings under wraps.
It wouldn't have been an issue in either case, because I doubt Hunter can remember all the crimes he's committed.
Probably not, but see my other comment. I think I misspoke about fessing up to all crimes being a requirement for a plea. I think that just applies to cooperation agreements against others.
I wasn't calling you out or anything; You're right. The contingency with a plea deal that involves a confession is almost always that you detail whatever other crimes you've committed and that you can then not be prosecuted separately for them. But if you leave anything out and the authorities learn about it later, then they can prosecute you for those crimes. My point was just that if Hunter made that kind of a deal, he's so coked-up that he'd forget something that he could then later be charged with.
I assume a part of this process includes that fessing to the crimes can't be used against you later (like if the plea bargain fails)? Because otherwise, that seems like a shitty process. They can just get you to say what you're guilty of, renege on the negotiation, and then use the confession as evidence.
Now that I think of it the Michael Cohen situation was probably different. He was cooperating with the government against others (Trump) instead of just taking a plea deal, and that probably changes things. Generally a plea deal goes like this: Prosecutors indict the defendant for crimes A, B, and C. The plea deal might involve the defendant pleading guilty to A in exchange for the prosecution dropping B and C and recommending a reduced sentence. If they deal falls through they can try the defendant on all 3 crimes, which they have to prove to a jury to get a conviction of course. I think they just have to come clean if they're cooperating for a reduced sentence.
What makes this whole thing suspicious is that Hunter is still under investigation. The way it should work is that they complete the investigation and then decide what to charge the target with. Only then would a plea deal be negotiated. The fact that they're still investigating is pretty damning evidence that they just wanted to bail out Hunter and make the whole thing go away. That's where this weird ass agreement on future immunity comes from, and that's why I said that this wouldn't be an issue if they had done things by the book.
In theory they can do that but then the whole federal plea system would fall apart. Now the thing is the confessing to all crimes and getting immunity is really for someone giving states evidence, not a one off charge. This is a one off charge you don't get protection for all the things they don't know about or might come down the pipe yet.
Look at it this way. Say you're a mafia member and get caught doing X crime. You don't want to do the time. You tell the feds that you want to cooperate they're going to ask you to tell them everything you've done(that way they have leverage over you to make sure you cooperate). And then if they're going to use you as a CI you have to let them know every crime you're going to be involved in.
Now let's look at a one off situation. Say you get caught passing a fake check. You're looking at ten years but the feds say they'll give you 1 if you just take the plea. This is a one off plea deal. If they then find out you passed 9 more fake checks they can arrest you for those 9 and depending on the conditions of the plea and time that elapsed, that one year deal may now be voided. So it could be in your best interest to cop to the extra checks and show you're cooperating even if it means you might get another year or two because it could work out better for you.
Basically, everyone wants to do a plea deal because it is easier for everyone involved.
What it seems like here is Hunter wants to have his cake and eat it too. He knows there's other shit that coming down but is trying to get a pass without telling them anything.
That wouldn't pass as evidence
Partisan prosecutors can’t be trusted to arrange plea deals.