Dating a signature is not necessarily important; the effective date of the agreement is, and that’s usually explicitly stated just above the signature lines and/or at the very beginning of the document.

Agreements sometimes have signature lines for non-parties. They can be for witnesses, for example, or for someone acknowledging the existence of the agreement. The role of those persons is ordinarily spelled out in the agreement. If it’s silent, and mentions only others as parties, then the non-party signatories are just that.

Reading Clark’s statement, I’m kind of blown away at how badly he represented Hunter in the run-up to the disastrous hearing on July 26. His contention that they were blindsided by Weiss’ changing of terms in the courtroom is bullshit. Clark’s public contention, that the Agreement was supposed to have precluded the DOJ from charging Hunter for anything whatsoever (barring a breach on Hunter’s part) is a fantasy. The contention he made in front of Norieka was just that, and it’s no wonder she set them straight on it.

The negotiation narrative he presents shows no language whatsoever that broad or encompassing, It always refers to immunity being tied to (“encompassed by”) the Statement of Facts appended to the Agreement, and that statement, which Clark signed, only relates to Hunter’s drug use and abuse, and his illegal purchase of the gun while being an active crack addict. There’s no way of extrapolating any blanket immunity whatsoever, especially not with respect to FARA or any bogus espionage charge they might want to drum up.

It seems like he was relying on a verbal conversation with AUSA Hanson (36) who told him that there were “no open or pending” other investigations into Hunter at that time, just before the hearing. That sure feels like wishful lawyering to me, hanging his hopes on a comment, which is also borne out by the press release he posted that made headlines before the hearing:
“… it is my understanding that the five-year investigation into Hunter is resolved.” (also 36)

And to emphasize that wishful point, that phrase had been edited, after talking to Hanson, from Clark’s original “I can confirm that the five-year long extensive investigation…has been concluded.” (35) Clark hones in on the Weiss team changing “concluded” to “resolved,” noting that they’re pretty synonymous words, but the *telling* edit in that PR was his alone, from “I can confirm” to “it is my understanding.”

Would I be alone in thinking that Clark should have just advised him to plea to the tax misdemeanor and be confident that any “un-encompassed” charges that may or may not materialize, e.g. related to his overseas work and computer, can be effectively and aggressively handled with a poison fruit defense (as they seem to be doing proactively anyway with their lawsuits)? As it stands now, Hunter is in much deeper shit than if he’d just bit the bullet in July, it seems to me.

Of course, maybe he was so advised and blew it off in the heat of the moment when he realized the deal wasn’t at all what Clark had portrayed. But the bottom line is that Norieka handled the whole thing appropriately and Clark unequivocally botched it royally, at least from my reading of his own accounting.