No, not at all. He was trying to enter the substantial equivalent of a no contest plea. It happens everyday in multiple courtrooms in Hillsborough County. The choice is even printed on our plea forms. In addition to no contest our forms allow one to select for a guilty plea whether the client is doing so because he/she is guilty OR because they think it's in their best interest to do so. That second choice makes it more palatable for clients to plead guilty and the judges are happy to accept those pleas without hesitation. 95+% of the guilty pleas to felony charges here are handled in that fashion and it has nothing to do with a possible future pardon.
I'm so mad about Hunter Biden possibly being pardoned I think I'll run out and vote for the guy running to pardon himself for all crimes on 1/20.
@GatorJMDZ, which part of the above post did you disagree with, that the President will ultimately pardon his son despite any pre-election assurances to the contrary, or that a public trial before the election was in neither the President's nor the Vice President's political interests?
I don't think anyone here fails to understand that. I stipulate that's exactly what Hunter Biden was trying to do. And his reasons for doing so are because he knows a pardon is coming, and a public trial was not in his father's or the Vice President's political interest.
If Trump wins, Trump should commute the sentence of Hunter. He is the son of a former President. That would be an attempt to heal the divide in the country.
The type of plea he was going to enter has NOTHING to do with whether he gets pardoned or not. Biden might very well pardon him...I hope he does. Trump was going to pardon himself and he along with Giuliani sold pardons. The high road gets tiresome when you are dealing with people who apparently know nothing but the low road. So screw them, Hunter's pardon would be my last official act.
Ah. So you don't think an Alford plea would have been slightly more politically palatable when the President inevitably pardons his son? Of course, you do. It a moot point now anyway, because the prosecutors and judge refused to allow it. But, yes, having his son never publicly admitting his guilt would have made it easier for the President to righteously condemn the political persecution of his poor son as he was slapping his signature to the paper. It would have put a coat of veneer on the hypocricy, but that's all. In the end, you're correct. He will do it on his way out the door and it will be a huge middle finger. But next time there won't be anything or anyone standing between Hunter and accountability, so he should enjoy this one last mulligan.
Nonsense. If I thought that, I would have said it. Biden doesn't have to say or justify anything. Sign it, extend middle finger, hop into the Vette and drive off into the sunset. (Yes, I know the Secret Service won't let him drive.)
That’s the real reason Hunter plead guilty. His gun charges trial was simply about Hunter while his tax evasion would impact the entire Biden family including The Big Guy. Democrats have successfully kept that pretty much out of the media but even the slanted media never saw a salacious trial they didn’t like. Weeks before the election this could have been devastating to Democrats. Oh, and of course Joe will pardon his son now that he’s no longer running for President.
Riggghhhhtttttt...so the Special Counsel has evidence implicating Joe, that the Republucan house has desperately been trying to find for two years, but conveniently it will never see the light of day because Hunter outsmarted them by pleading guilty.
The House has Biden in their sights, but why pull the trigger on a dead-end partisan impeachment like the democrats did. Chucky Schumer would just make history twice by tabling the House vote to impeach when he did the same with Mayorkas who deserves to be impeached.
No way, he did that for Hillary and that didn't work out. Biden will have to do it if it is to be done.
Townhall covers you need and want to know quite well as you don't keep up with the balance sheet on your side of the ledger: 'Vindicated': IRS Whistleblower Reacts to Hunter Biden's Guilty Plea (townhall.com) Two whistleblowers, we know from democrats that all whistleblowers must be protected and trusted, have fallen on the sword sacrificing their careers to get the truth out about how the Biden DOJ was attempting to give preferential treatment to Hunter Biden. IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, whose bombshell testimony exposed the U.S. Department of Justice's efforts to influence the investigation into Hunter Biden, had a lot to say about the case's outcome, given how hard the Biden DOJ had tried to hand Hunter a free pass. Shapley's whistleblowing, as well as that of Joseph Ziegler, had helped implode Hunter's sweetheart plea deal, which would have granted President Joe Biden's son blanket immunity. That fell apart thanks to the two insiders detailing the DOJ's interference. Shapley, weighing in on Hunter's about-face, reacted to the development in an on-camera Fox News interview: We came forward because of what we saw the DOJ doing, providing preferential treatment and political interference in this case. It's a little vindication, but it's really not why we came forward. Now, we're more focused on how we are going to hold the DOJ accountable for the things that they have actually proved themselves that we were right in the way that they were handling this case. Hopefully there will be some mechanism to do so. I think the steps that the DOJ has taken has proven that they didn't do the right thing in the first place. On May 15, 2023, David Weiss' office was offering this defendant a non-prosecution agreement, and of course, that morphed into the sweetheart plea deal that fell apart. It goes to show the DOJ is proving that what they did initially was wrong. It shouldn't have taken two of us to really ruin our careers to bring this forward to the American people.
Ahh, so your argument is that it was weaponized, but then the same people that were supposed to weaponize it decided not to weaponize it?