No. of Recommendations: 2
bighairymike: The judge discovered a broad grant (crimes still under investigation, crimes not yet discovered, that sort of thing) of immunity for Hunter deep in the fine print of some supporting document, something she apparently wasn't supposed to find.
Got a link that substantiates your claim (that the immunity was "deep in the fine print")? And why would Hunter Biden agree to this plea agreement if prosecutors could keep digging into his life forever? What's the upside for him? Staying out of prison? Nobody goes to prison after repaying their back taxes or for that sort of gun license charge.
bighairymike: Hunters attorney's thought they had agreed to broad immunity but the prosecutors couldn't defend that to judge, so it was out.
No. The judge said both parties had to agree to the terms of the "contract" and since they did not, they needed to go back and work out a mutually acceptable agreement. She said she couldn't approve an agreement when the parties did not have a meeting of the minds.
bighairymike: Hunter would not agree to the plea agreement without it meeting his understanding of granting broader immunity, so they [sic] parties were at an impasse and Hunter rather than pleading guilty under plea agreement entered a plea of not guilty.
Again, not quite. Hunter entered a "not guilty" plea so the parties could go back and do what the judge asked them to do: work out a mutually acceptable agreement.
More importantly (or equally importantly), the judge objected to a provision in the agreement on the gun charge that she said would have created a role for her where she would determine if Hunter Biden violated the terms of the plea agreement. She said, "ain't my job".
If nothing else, discovery's gonna' be lit if this case ever gets to indictments.
