Some readers asked me to clarify the corrupt Hunter Biden deal with the Department of Justice.

(1)  What the defense needs to accomplish.

The primary objective is to resolve Hunter Biden’s legal woes without a trial that could not only prove he committed crimes but that President Biden was actively involved in these activities and that other government officials, past and present, were part of a conspiracy to cover up wrongdoing.

The single most damaging charge with political ramifications would be if Hunter Biden were deemed to have violated FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) and be guilty of acting as a foreign agent acting on behalf of a foreign government to influence U.S. policies. Other charges would include influence peddling, money laundering, extortion, fraud, false statements, obstruction of justice, etc.

By extension, President Biden would also be a “foreign agent” and guilty of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors, particularly the explicit Article II, Section 4 offense of bribery. “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

(2)  How did the defense plan to do this?

Primarily by working with a corrupt Department of Justice and having Hunter Biden plead guilty to a few relatively minor crimes and hide an immunity agreement in the court documents.

(3)  How would that work?

The deal would require creating two separate documents, a plea agreement, which requires court approval and would be a guilty plea for relatively minor tax charges (where a third party has already paid restitution), and a diversion agreement on the gun charge.

The diversion agreement would be structured as a private contract between a U.S. attorney and a defendant, not requiring court approval, where the defendant agrees to future conduct in exchange for deferred prosecution, dropping the charges if all terms and conditions are met.

The trick was to include in both agreements extensive recitals of Hunter Biden’s criminal activities – including those involving foreign governments, shakedowns, and then craft language that provides Hunter Biden with broad immunities from future prosecutions based on those recitals.

(4) What went wrong?

U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware noticed the unusual and convoluted nature of the presented documents and refused to “rubber stamp” them without clearly understanding what they contained and what they offered Hunter Biden.

“Have you ever seen a diversion agreement where the agreement not to prosecute is so broad that it encompasses crimes in a different case?” she asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Leo Wise.

Mr. Wise replied that he had not.

She ascertained that she was being asked to agree to the diversion document over which she had no controlling authority. And that while the defense thought they had broad immunity, the U.S. Attorney noted there were ongoing investigations and that future charges, including a FARA violation, could be levied against Hunter Biden.

When she asked Hunter Biden if he would accept the package without its promise, he replied “no,” and the deal evaporated.

(5) What’s next?

Since there is no plea deal, Hunter, having pled guilty, could be charged and exposed to the maximum sentencing while ongoing investigations proceeded. However, the Judge deferred the matter and asked the parties to return to court with another understanding or prepare for trial.

Bottom line…

It appears this type of deal may have been crafted at the corrupt Department of Justice under the guidance of Obama’s legendary fixer, Lisa Monaco, who serves as the 39^th Deputy Attorney General of the United States and is thought to be the puppeteer pulling Attorney General Merrick Garland’s strings. And probably the individual directing the diversionary attack on former President Trump, who was unconstitutionally impeached for acts that Joe Biden committed.

We have a constitutional crisis, a failure of the rule of law where government officials ignore federal regulations, a multi-tier politically-based judicial system, and a corrupted jury system biased by venue shopping.

For those who do not believe we are on the road to progressive communist democrat lawlessness, consider the words of two radical leftists, Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet, along with San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin, who openly advise President Joe Biden to ignore Supreme Court rulings that run counter to the progressive agenda.

We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations.

We have worked diligently over the past five years to advocate Supreme Court expansion as a necessary strategy for restoring democracy. Although we continue to support expansion, the threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require Congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage.

We do not believe that President Biden should simply ignore every MAGA ruling. The President should act when MAGA justices issue high-stakes rulings that are based on gravely mistaken constitutional interpretations, and when presidential action predicated on his administration’s constitutional interpretations would substantially mitigate the damage posed by the ruling in question. <Source>

To say we are screwed is an understatement.

-- Steve