There is now very strong documentary evidence that Hunter Biden committed many very serious crimes which ordinarily would require substantial time behind bars, and that the investigation of his possible criminal activities and the decision to offer him a no-jail "Sweetheart" plea deal was corrupted by political interference, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf
Although Republicans have obtained much of this evidence and have loudly complained about what they criticize as an unfair "Sweetheart" no-time plea deal, they are refusing to provide the existing documentary evidence to federal judge Maryellen Noreika so that she can knowledgeably decide, as the law requires, whether accepting the plea deal is truly in the public interest.
So Banzhaf has just asked the Heritage Foundation - which has gone to court to seek other valuable information about this case, but so far without success - to take this very strong documentary evidence which already exists, and present it to the judge before the Wednesday hearing.
At the very least, suggests Banzhaf, the evidence should be sufficient to require her to postpone her decision on the plea deal until she can examine the hundreds of pages of documentary evidence, and also provide additional time for the Heritage Foundation to obtain the additional incriminating documents it is seeking under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].
This evidence includes, at the very least, testimony under oath by two FBI whistleblowers, emails incriminating not just Hunter but possibly even his father, numerous Treasury Suspicious Activity Reports showing multi-million dollar payments to Hunter and other Biden family members from companies in China, Romania, and Ukraine, shell company-related findings, encrypted messaging application missives, many documents recovered from a laptop computer conceded to belong to Hunter Biden, and now an authenticated but previously secret FBI FD-1023 form about Hunter and various business dealings.
The plea agreement "Falls short given the backdrop of the parties' motivation, trusted employment position, and the threats to national and global security ... that actions caused," because the judge was inclined to give the defendant a longer sentence, "[i]t was not in the best interest of the community, or the country, to accept the[] plea agreements," etc.
Perhaps most tellingly, a judge once rejected a negotiated plea deal simply because, as he explained: "[i]t is contrary to justice.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-07-24/heritage-foundation-urged-stop-hunter-sweetheart-plea-deal
No comments:
Post a Comment