Former fed prosecutor analyzes what happened yesterday with Hunty's plea deal

Yesterday at around 7pm a man named Will Scharf (@willscharf), who claims to be a former federal prosecutor, gave his view of the what happened with the Hunter Biden plea deal dust-up Wednesday morning.

Here's his post (edited by me; feel free to check the original--link at the end--to see if I've changed his meaning in any way):

When the government tells a defendant it's willing to either drop charges or grant immunity in exchange for a guilty plea, that plea deal is normally structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A).  

So if the government agreed that in return for Hunter pleading guilty to two tax charges --pled down to misdemeanors--the DOJ would not prosecute Hunter for FARA violations or other crimes not discovered, that would normally be totally specified in the (c)(1)(A) plea.  This is open, transparent and subject to judicial approval.

But in Hunter's case, according to what folks in the courtroom have told me, the plea deal was structured under a different rule:  FRCP 11(c)(1)(B), which contains no information about other potential charges, and no details of any agreement by DOJ not to prosecute any other charges for past crimes or those which may be discovered later.

This allowed the DOJ and Hunter's lawyers to  hide that part of the plea deal under what was publicly described as a "pretrial diversion agreement" relating to the charge that Hunty lied on a federal form to buy a gun when he claimed he was not a drug user.

Turns out that "pretrial diversion agreement" was actually MUCH broader than just the gun charge.  It seems to have provided that if Hunter completed probation, the DOJ would agree not to ever charge Hunty for any other crimes, including his foreign influence peddling operations in China and for Burisma.

To hide this from the public, they put part of the facts in the plea agreement, but hid their non-prosecution agreement in the pretrial diversion agreement, effectively hiding the full scope of what DOJ was offering Hunter.

Hunter was being given full immunity from all  prosecution for any other crimes--but the public wouldn't know that because the plea agreement itself contained none of this, which it normally would have.

Judge Noreika spotted the ruse, and backed DOJ and Hunter's lawyers into a corner by getting them to admit some of the details, and indicating that she wasn't going to approve a deal as broad as what she had discovered.  

To save face the DOJ prosecutors then stated on the record that the investigation into Hunter was ongoing and that Hunter could possibly be prosecuted under FARA.  On hearing this Hunter's lawyers balked, since they'd understood the deal was for total immunity, including FARA violations and any other crimes-- which the "pretrial diversion agreement" language indeed provided.

Given the DOJ's face-saving statement, Hunty's lawyers declined the deal, and Hunter pled not guilty.

Now Hunter's lawyers and DOJ prosecutors will try to agree on language of a new deal that will satisfy the judge.  That deal is likely to omit the "total immunity" language, but with the unwritten understanding that the DOJ just won't prosecute FARA violations, or any other charges.

Totally fair and unbiased, citizens.

Just kidding.  This is banana-republic-level crap, and everyone who's not a brain-dead Dem knows it.

Source.

https://twitter.com/willscharf/status/1684331594864025602