The article is poorly written, so I can't tell if the deal is officially dead. What I know for sure is that the judge refused to simply rubber stamp it, and gave both sides 30 days to explain why she should accept the deal. What I'm unable to discern is if the whole thing fell apart after the hearing. Either way it's bad news for Hunter the Crackhead.
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.
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.
The article is poorly written, so I can't tell if the deal is officially dead. What I know for sure is that the judge refused to simply rubber stamp it, and gave both sides 30 days to explain why she should accept the deal. What I'm unable to discern is if the whole thing fell apart after the hearing. Either way it's bad news for Hunter the Crackhead.
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.
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.
That wouldn't pass as evidence