Issue overlooked in the Hunter court case

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

What exactly are they going to do? Congress is not a law enforcement body.

I thought lying to congress was a crime? I would imagine impersonating a member of congress would also be considered a crime.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Ilikesecrets

Who are they declaring war against over Hunter's lawyers being idiots?

It should be mentioned the last time Congress actually declared war was World War II.

Crime syndicates look it up. They did it in the 20's and 30's. I guess you never heard of the 'war on drugs' either eh?

a reply to: Threadbare

File an ethics complaint or something like that with the bar.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: greendust

It appears that Hunter's team committed blatant misconduct
by impersonating a member of Congress in a phone call to
the Judges office in an attempt to remove the evidence
away from the Judges eyes.

Hunter's team should be sanctioned, and hopefully the
congressional committee will file an ethics complaint.

But since Hunter's team is working in conjunction
with the DOJ to protect the Biden crime dealings,
it is doubtful any consequences will be handed down.

freebeacon.com...

Yes to all of that.

Yet, waiting for Republicans to act like Democrats when Democrats smell blood in the water is like waiting for Mt. Everest to crumble into dust.

Not to mention the uniparty factor that nibbles the edges of accountability but really never holds anyone in serious contempt.

It's just like the MSM passively calling BLATANT criminality "troubling" or "concerning". SMH.

a reply to: nugget1

All Congress can do is file a recommendation to the DOJ to pursue criminal charges.

a reply to: Ilikesecrets

Do you think the War on Drugs was an actual war declared by Congress?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: burntheships

They were attempting to seal the amicus so it wouldn't be publically available. There's nothing they could do that would prevent the judge from seeing it.

There's almost definitely going to be sanctions and possibly disbarment referrals.

Hunter isn't an employee of the government and neither are his lawyers, so I'm not entirely sure what the House Ethics Committee is supposed to do.

And because Hunter's legal team is just as scummy as he and his father are, they have no problem doing something like this, they are just amazed they got caught. Hopefully they end up working at McDonalds asking if you want fries with that.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: burntheships

They were attempting to seal the amicus so it wouldn't be publically available.

That is NOT what they were trying to do, they knew the legal procedure
to follow, and they did not. Instead they lied and impersonated a member
of congress in a desperate attempt to protect the criminal they are
representing.

How you can defend that is beyond me, unless your part of that ilk.

a reply to: burntheships

I'm not defending it. I've said multiple times that sanctions are most likely on the way with disbarment being a possibility.

I was correcting the wrong information you were trying to provide.

A judge will have access to anything filed on the docket regardless of if it's sealed or not.

Hunter's lawyers were trying to seal an amicus that publically available on the docket.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: burntheships

I'm not defending it. I've said multiple times that sanctions are most likely on the way with disbarment being a possibility.

I was correcting the wrong information you were trying to provide.

A judge will have access to anything filed on the docket regardless of if it's sealed or not.

Hunter's lawyers were trying to seal an amicus that publically available on the docket.

The amicus is and was at the time publically available on their website , so in my mind they were trying to keep it from being read by the judge.

a reply to: Threadbare

“It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the Clerk’s Office to remove the amicus materials from the docket,” Noreika said

thehill.com...

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, however it is
clear as day Hunter's team tried to keep the congressional
brief away from the sentencing hearing.

Please, people are onto this kind of stuff since the Russia hoax,
it is all the same kind of corruption, lies, shifty criminal stuff
coming from one dirty house.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Judges can't unilaterally hand down sentences with no trial.

The Founding Fathers built a legal system based on checks & balances for a reason.

Non sequitur, your "facts" are uncoordinated.

A judge can IMMEDIATELY put people directly in jail for contempt of court, no trial required. Go back to school.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: greendust

You may want to look into the J6 cases and who exactly is requesting delays.

Whoever it is, it is a shame that it is happening. This is not my country. This is a nightmare. I am frightened that so many people have no idea that these things are going on and that many I talk to on the left think they deserve that treatment. Even more frightening is attempting to watch CNN or MSNBC or ABC/CBS/NBC for any length of time. Its all Trump all the time. And just recently the Mitch McConnells "senior moment". Almost NOTHING about Biden. Almost nothing detailing our government holding American citizens in prison without trial. Its frightening. And the thing that shocks me the most is citizens that vote for DNC politicians have no idea that the DNC will do the same to them if they get in the way of their goals. And I think at this point you might be a fool if you do not know what their actual goal is.

It is for absolute power. The ability to do whatever they want when they want to do it.

a reply to: burntheships

if punishment happens it will be for show

all controlled opposition

you right they working together but now exposed

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Bloom v. Illinois establishes that for serious contempt cases the accused is allowed a jury trial.

originally posted by: greendust
The US house of representatives legal team sent an amicus to be placed on the docket for Hunters prosecution outlining the other crimes they are investigating in their pervue. The purpose was to inform the judge that the plea deal should be reviewed more thoroughly as Hunter is under investigation for other crimes by the house of representatives.
It was placed on the docket.
At some point before the hearing (maybe the day before - I forget) the manager for Hunters defense team contacted the court clerk claiming to be from the House of representatives legal team and told the clerk that there was personal imformation on the amicus that was incorrect and asked the cleark to remove the amicus. The clerk did so as this is normal to happen at times from the appropriate parties.
The house of reps legal team reviewed the docket at some point and realized that their amicus was missing and contacted the clerk and asked why.
Eventually it was realized that Hunters team did it and the end result was the judge ordered that all further changes to the docket had to go through her personally.

To me this seems that Hunters team is shifty and it makes me wonder how many times have they as a legal org has done such sneaky things before. Also I am surprised that there are no repurcussions for this behavior. If interested, please watch this video detailing the event.

The judges order for all docket entries to go through her after the event is on another video by the same youtuber. If asked I will find it eventually.
I am curious if any of the MSM Biden supporters here have even heard of this little fiasco?

Also if you claim this is not real then I cannot personally believe anything you say as in the video I have provided, every single public court document related to this event is included in the video above with the exception of the judges order post event which I can find if needed. I just have to leave here in a bit and cannot do so at the moment.

These people have no morals.
This is in no way surprising.

a reply to: shooterbrody

They're defense attorneys. Isn't a lack of morals a prerequisite for the job?

greendust

Sometimes I think the modern left think of themselves as weird movie stars in a weird role instead of being on earth with the rest of us.

Why do you think they're so cozy with the entertainment industry. I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people haven't been convinced they're 'filming a role' and signing NDA's/paid handsomely, but their role ends up being on/in the 'news'. Or something to that effect.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: shooterbrody

They're defense attorneys. Isn't a lack of morals a prerequisite for the job?

You cheering such is no surprise
New election
New accounts
Same BAMN bull crap