Maryellen Noreika and Mark Scarsi’s Schrödinger’s Cat
David Weiss invokes Maryellen Noreika in the very first sentence of his Los Angeles — but not his Delaware — response to Hunter Biden’s immunity bid (not to mention, extrinsic evidence that, per his position that the diversion agreement was unambiguous, should be irrelevant).
The defendant has moved to dismiss the indictment returned by the grand jury in this district on the ground that a proposed diversion agreement presented to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on July 26, 2023, which the district court rightly referred to as a “proposed agreement,” which required the approval of the Chief United States Probation Officer to enter into effect, which she expressly declined to give, see Exhibit 1, and as to which the district court in Delaware “deferred” a decision on accepting, nonetheless is in effect and confers “sweeping” immunity on the defendant in this case. [my emphasis]
The filing uses the word “proposed” 43 more times, almost all discussing either the diversion agreement or the tax plea agreement and in one case, including it in brackets within a quote of Leo Wise’s own words, effectively putting what Weiss claims Noreika said into Wise’s mouth even though Wise didn’t say it himself.
Only, Weiss misquotes what Judge Noreika said.
The word “proposed” was uttered once in the failed plea hearing, referring to both the plea and the diversion. Judge Noreika didn’t call either document a “proposed agreement;” she instead described “what is being proposed.” And before she used that word, “proposed,” she twice called the documents “agreements,” with no modifier.
THE COURT: Now, we have two cases and two agreements and I understand that the Diversion Agreement is not something that is typically before the Court, but you all did send it to me so I do want to talk about that a little bit. There are some provisions in those agreements that are not standard and are different from what I normally see, so I think we need to walk through these documents and get some understanding of what is being proposed so that I can give due consideration to the determination that you all are asking me to make. So I want to start with Criminal Action 23-274 involving the tax charges. [my emphasis]
In Weiss’ Delaware response, he only places that word in Judge Noreika’s mouth on the second page, and in full context, and only uses the word proposed 33 times. He never misquotes Noreika to Noreika.
In context in the plea hearing, Noreika was probably referring not to either document as “proposed.” She was probably referring to the way the two documents worked together and the expectations the two documents, working together, would put on her and Delaware head of Probation, Margaret Bray.
This immunity bid, along with three other motions to dismiss and a discovery motion, have now been fully briefed before Judge Noreika for 66 days. During those 66 days, both sides briefed the same issues before Judge Scarsi, he held a motions hearing, and issued a decision — a decision that would mean representations on which she made decisions last year are no longer valid.
I described the other day that Noreika appears to be frozen in uncertainty about what to do about these motions. And since Judge Scarsi issued his weird ruling on this same motion on Monday, neither side has noticed Noreika of the decision. It’s as if everyone is hunkering down waiting for Noreika to rule to see how it affects all these other moving parts.
I want to propose something about this dispute, about what is making it so difficult — for Noreika, especially — to decide. As Noreika herself noted in that passage from which David Weiss misquoted her, Judges don’t usually get involved in diversion agreements. But she did here. And in an effort to get out of that diversion agreement, Weiss has made Noreika’s intervention into the diversion agreement the subject of the dispute.
Noreika did not approve the plea on July 26 of last year for two reasons.
First, she was uncomfortable with the role she played in the diversion agreement, which all sides agreed she had no role in approving.
The immunity provision, for all crimes — gun, drug, and tax — was in the diversion agreement, not the plea agreement, but was cross-referenced in the plea agreement.
Both sides told her that she was only approving the plea, but since they had given her the diversion agreement, she inquired about how her role would work.
THE COURT: All right. Now at this point I would normally ask Mr. Biden how he pleads, but as we’ve already discussed, the Diversion Agreement is out there in a felony case, it is cross-referenced in the Memorandum of Plea Agreement. The Plea Agreement is cross-referenced in the Diversion Agreement, so before I ask him how he pleads, I need to understand — well, ask him how he pleads or decide if I can accept the Plea Agreement, I need to understand the Diversion Agreement.
So the felony gun charge here is a bit unusual, and we don’t usually make diversion agreements public. I don’t usually see a diversion agreement as the parties up here have hinted, but in fact you all did send it to me and it is referenced in the agreement that is before me in the tax case.
She objected to the way the diversion agreement included her as a finder of fact in case of a breach of the agreement.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
All right. Now I have reviewed the case law and I have reviewed the statute and I had understood that the decision to offer the defendant, any defendant a pretrial diversion rest squarely with the prosecutor and consistent with that, you all have told me repeatedly that’s a separate agreement, there is no place for me to sign off on it, and as I think I mentioned earlier, usually I don’t see those agreements. But you all did send it to me and as we’ve discussed, some of it seems like it could be relevant to the plea.
One provision in particular stands out to me, and that is paragraph 14. That paragraph says if the United States believes that a knowing material breach of this agreement has occurred, it may seek a determination by the United States District Judge for the District of Delaware with responsibility for the supervision of this agreement.
It then goes on to say that if I do find a breach, then the government can either give the Defendant time to remedy the breach or prosecute him for the crime that is the subject of the information or any other that falls within the language of the agreement. Do I have that understanding correct?
[snip]
THE COURT: First it got my attention because you keep telling me that I have no role, I shouldn’t be reading this thing, I shouldn’t be concerned about what’s in these provisions, but you have agreed that I will do that, but you didn’t ask me for sign off, so do you have any precedent for that?
[snip]
THE COURT: I’m concerned that that provision makes me a gatekeeper to criminal charges and puts me in the middle of a decision as to whether to bring a charge. And we already talked about separation of powers and that choice as to whether to bring charges is not — that’s the executive branch, not the judicial branch, so is this even constitutional?
MR. CLARK: I believe it is, Your Honor, because what the structure makes clear is that Your Honor is just finding facts. [my emphasis]
Importantly, all three sides — Hunter Biden’s team, David Weiss’ team, and Judge Noreika — made comments at this plea hearing that were internally inconsistent.
In Judge Noreka’s case, some of those comments pertained to whether her role was presiding over just the plea, or also the diversion agreement, which both parties to it said she had no authority to approve.
What’s funny to me is you put me right smack in the middle of the Diversion Agreement that I should have no role in, you plop meet right in there and then on the thing that I would normally have the ability to sign off on or look at in the context of a Plea Agreement, you just take it out and you say Your Honor, don’t pay any attention to that provision not to prosecute because we put it in an agreement that’s beyond your ability.
So this is what I am going to do. These agreements are not straightforward and they contain some atypical provisions. I am not criticizing you for coming up with those, I think that you have worked hard to come up with creative ways to deal with this. But I am not in a position where I can decide to accept or reject the Plea.
[snip]
THE COURT: I certainly understand what — if it’s a plea under subsection (c)(1)(B), I am not going to just agree with you as to the limits of my role. My problem is I am not — I am not sure, and I need to understand the propriety, it may very well be that it is appropriate, but as I said, it did catch my attention, you throw me in there, Judge, you’re the gatekeeper and then you take me out of the other aspects of the — you throw me into the Diversion Agreement and then you take me out of the Memorandum of Plea Agreement.
So I cannot accept the Plea Agreement today.
Even though the government did repeatedly tell her that the diversion agreement was only between the parties, they have also pointed to her docket minutes in support of their argument that the diversion had not come into effect.
The Court deferred a decision on the plea and pretrial diversion agreement.
But here’s the thing: If Noreika believes it is a separation of powers violation for Article III to be involved in a diversion agreement, then the diversion agreement should not be in that docket minute. It should, instead, say something like she was deferring a decision on the plea because of concerns about the diversion agreement.
I have argued that Judge Mark Scarsi misapplied Schrödinger’s cat paradox to his own weird decision on the diversion agreement. But one thing that happened here is that someone outside to the diversion agreement observed it with the result that the status of it changed. We are still debating on the status of that contract to which she is not a party because of her interventions.
And now Judge Noreika has been asked to rule on whether that contract that became a not contract because of her observations on it is a binding contract.
But that brings us to the other reason Noreika refused to approve the plea. Noreika didn’t accept the plea because Leo Wise told her there was an ongoing investigation.
THE COURT: Is there an ongoing investigation here?
MR. WISE: There is.
THE COURT: May I ask then why if there is we’re doing this piecemeal?
MR. WISE: Your Honor may ask, but I’m not in a position where I can say.
This, right at that moment, was a separate breach of the agreement between the parties, and deserves more attention. As I have laid out, Weiss has had five different opportunities to contest Abbe Lowell’s representation that on June 19 of last year, David Weiss’ office told Chris Clark that there was no ongoing investigation. Weiss has waived the opportunity to contest that. Leo Wise’s claim, at the hearing, was a breach of those representations.
And then, specifically referencing Wise’s affirmation that there was an ongoing investigation, Noreika asked if FARA charges could be charged and Leo Wise said they could, while Hunter and his attorneys believed that was prohibited by the diversion agreement. Along the way, Wise misrepresented the nature of the agreement, suggesting that Noreika would sign the diversion agreement.
MR. WISE: Because by the terms of the Plea Agreement, the only function, the Diversion Agreement — well, it has no function but the parties negotiated that their view, and it’s their view, probation can take a different view, Your Honor can take a different view, their view is the firearms offense should not be considered relevant conduct for calculating the guidelines related to the tax offense, that is all that 5(b) says. It does not incorporate the paragraph 15 or any part of the Diversion Agreement, it simply says our view is the Diversion Agreement, the firearm offense should not be considered relevant conduct in calculating the guidelines. I think practically how this would work, Your Honor, is if Your Honor takes the plea and signs the Diversion Agreement which is what puts it into force as of today, and at some point in the future we were to bring charges that the Defendant thought were encompassed by the factual statement in the Diversion Agreement or the factual statement in the Plea Agreement, they could move to dismiss those charges on the grounds that we had contractually agreed not to bring charges encompassed within the factual statement of the Diversion Agreement or the factual statement of the tax charges.
MR. CLARK: That’s my understanding, Your Honor, we would be enforcing a contract with the Department of Justice.
THE COURT: I don’t understand how you have an agreement not to pursue other charges in the case, the misdemeanor case, and you say that is not part of his Plea Agreement.
MR. WISE: Because the Plea Agreement does not include that.
THE COURT: All right. So let’s talk a little bit more about this. To the extent that the agreement —
you can sit down. To the extent that the agreement not to prosecute is promised, do the parties have some understanding what the scope of that agreement is?MR. WISE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No, tell me, like specifically what does it include. You said that there is an investigation, I don’t know what that is, but you must know that if there are particular charges that could be brought based on the facts that are there.
MR. WISE: So I can tell you what I think we can’t charge. I can’t tell you what the ongoing investigation is. So, for instance, I think based on the terms of the agreement, we cannot bring tax evasion charges for the years described in the factual statement to the Plea Agreement. And I think we cannot bring for the firearms charges based on the firearm identified in the factual statement to the Diversion Agreement.
THE COURT: All right. So there are references to foreign companies, for example, in the facts section. Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?
MR. WISE: Yes.
THE COURT: I’m trying to figure out if there is a meeting of the minds here and I’m not sure that this provision isn’t part of the Plea Agreement and so that’s why I’m asking.
MR. CLARK: Your Honor, the Plea Agreement —
THE COURT: I need you to answer my question if you can. Is there a meeting of the minds on that one?
MR. CLARK: As stated by the government just now, I don’t agree with what the government said.
This was earlier in the hearing; it precedes Noreika’s concerns about the diversion agreement. But it is one reason she was so concerned about her inclusion in the diversion agreement: because the two parties disagreed on the scope of the immunity provided.
Or rather, because Leo Wise had already changed the terms of the agreement, to include an ongoing investigation that Chris Clark had been assured did not exist.
We can now be quite sure what that ongoing investigation is: David Weiss reneged on the terms of the agreement, claiming there was an ongoing investigation when his office had previously assured Clark there was not, after members of Congress made Alexander Smirnov’s FD-1023 public. Faced with renewed attention on it, David Weiss was chasing the lead he was ordered to investigate in 2020, chasing it only to find out it was a false claim of bribery against Joe Biden.
When this dispute started back in December, how these parts fit together was not clear. Since, it has become clear that having been ordered to investigate the FD-1023 days after Donald Trump pressured Bill Barr in October 2020, under pressure from Congress, Weiss reneged on the assurances his office had given Clark in June 2023, which was the understanding on which the diversion agreement was signed, in order to be able to chase the Smirnov lead.
And now Weiss is presiding over an investigation into how Smirnov’s false claims came to be mainstreamed into the investigation of Hunter Biden in which he is a witness, a wildly unethical position to be in.
But by all appearances that is what explains the two breaches here: first, to Leo Wise reneging on the terms agreed before he was party to this prosecution, and then, to Wise’s refusal to brief the diversion agreement that Judge Scarsi says is binding, but instead to strip it of all immunity altogether.
Judge Maryellen Noreika’s decision on the diversion agreement and on the circumstances that led Weiss to renege on assurances he had given Clark is quite different than Scarsi’s. That’s true, in part, because by intervening in a signed contract to which she was not party, she led to the abrogation of that contract.
And then, because she took steps to ensure the rights of Hunter Biden — to ensure that the misdemeanors he thought he was facing were really what he was facing — prosecutors used that opportunity to slap on a bunch of felonies that, evidence before her makes quite clear, they had never bothered to investigate in the years they had investigated Hunter Biden.
I have no idea how she’ll ultimately rule. If she hoped that Scarsi would come up with a solution she could adopt, the prior representations about the status of the agreement, on which she based some decisions last year, may preclude her from simply adopting his weird solution. But she also faces a different legal and ethical position vis a vis the contract than Scarsi, because prosecutors took advantage of her good faith efforts to protect Hunter’s rights as a way to renege on the agreement altogether.
I sure hope that you are taking all of this material and putting it together into book form for popular consumption. It’s hard to make a junkie/John from a privileged background seem like a good guy, but the moral corruption of the government demonstrated by how they treat that guy, from the irs, congress, the department of justice, and the court system is truly breathtaking.
The oddity here is that without the particular privilege that this guy has, he would have been able to plead to misdemeanors and have been given a run-of-the-mill diversion deal and be on with rest of his life by now.
As noted by EW in the post it does not seem clear at all what diversion agreement Noreika is being expected to approve. I’m also wondering why Clark would have been satisfied with glaring loose ends like an active but super-duper-secret investigation that could potentially leverage the diversion agreement as stipulated admissions.
So, although IANAL, my take is that Noreika should just reject the agreement motion outright because the terms have been modified since she heard the matter, the terms are incomplete because the government and defense have different versions about what is in it plus it doesn’t cover HB’s issues in their entirety, and because Scarsi has ruled about several key parts of it already. Whether the Noreika denial grants leave to amend is up to her, but I suspect any further discussion would require another briefed hearing to put all of the cards on the table.
As Popok frequently observes, judges want to know two things: why are we here, and what do you want. As a corollary I would add ‘where is the proof?’. I don’t think any of these three questions are answered here.
No, Noreika should enforce the original agreement. And that is exactly what would happen in any other case, with any other defendant and in any other court. Popok is an idiot.
If Noreika does enforce the original agreement, what does that do to Scarsi’s adventure into quantum physics? Doesn’t much of Scarsi’s ruling get mooted since we know where the legal cat is now?
The thing on the gun charge involves circular logic. I cannot find where someone can be convicted of a substance abuse crime without a toxicology report, a sobriety test or possession. So, if Hunter did not write the book, there would be no proof of drug use and the gun purchase would have been legal. IANAL, but this case is taking on a Kafkaesque quality. Frankly, we could have a violation of at least the 5th Amendment if Noreika drops the charges and Scarsi keeps them.
Scarsi caused me to re-engage in a useless bad habit which is studying and trying to understand quantum physics. I re-watched the section in the Great Courses lectures on “The Many Hidden Worlds of Quantum Mechanics,” by renown physicist Sean Carroll. It is a good lecture but a bit recondite. Terms like the wave function, entanglement, Copenhagen Interpretation, the Solvay Conference, superposition, particles, will leave you vertiginous.
I have only one day in a courtroom – loved one of a misdemeanor defendant – but based on that (and what I’ve learned reading EW, of course) it seems to me like Atty Clark should have been tighter-lipped or deflected (“No FARA violations are alleged”, “They haven’t been part of our discussions”, whatever applied), and figured that the diversion agreement would survive (based on the U.S. v. Clark language in the Scarsi denial) no matter what Leo Wise was feeding Judge Noreika. He doesn’t need to help Wise – let it be an understanding or misunderstanding between the prosecution and the judge and a fight for the defense for another day.
Since there have been assertions here that civil contract law doesn’t apply but not so many explanations as to why and how, here’s somebody that might find the increased traffic to their website interesting – Plea Agreements: You Can Make Them Fix That Breach! Really Fix It (I think it reinforces my take re: Atty Clark, too.)
This is beyond wildly unethical. Isn’t this prima facie legal grounds for a judge to require that Weiss be removed from involvement in the investigation of Hunter Biden?
ETA: Isn’t this the same conflict that the Georgia AG faced when considering investigating Trump for election interference in Georgia? He declined to get involved, saying something along the lines of “I am a witness to the conduct under investigation, so I cannot lead the investigation.”
No, and that is but one of the problems.
How can a witness be a lawyer representing one side of a case?
As Marcy has said, it’s unethical for a lawyer to do that.
When lawyers start talking about something being unethical, I start laughing.
Forget ethics: please tell me how is it not illegal?
It is hard to impose consequences on DoJ attorneys. The long Eastman saga in California suggests the problem is not limited to the DoJ. Self-regulation often means non-regulation, whether in the corporate world or professionally.
“[T]he scandal isn’t what’s illegal, the scandal is what’s legal.”
– Michael Kinsley
If I’m Lowell, SC Weiss would be called as a hostile witness to testify how the diversion agreement got torpedoed. Weiss made it happen and therefore would be a fact witness, I think. I also think the Smirnov information would be part of the reneging process which makes it fair game for Lowell.
Normally, the prosecutor is off-limits but the distinction for SC Weiss here is that he committed potentially criminal (lying to investigators and courts) or at least unethical actions to blow up the diversion agreement instead of merely following where the evidence led.
Rayne, my last comment was “No, and that is but one of the problems.”. A totally innocuous response to Peter.
Why is that “in moderation”? What in the world is going on here?
I have no idea why your previous “totally innocuous response” went into auto-moderation because there’s no obvious trigger. Marcy cleared it for you as promptly as she could.
Further, I don’t know why this complaint of yours also went into auto-moderation. It will be investigated.
I do know that you would have a hissy if commenters complained like this about not being immediately cleared for publication when you were a moderator. This site does not guarantee immediate clearance of all users’ comments as you well know.
As far as this comment section turning into a joke as you said in a now-binned 10:22 a.m. comment, in your opinion, your off-topic complaints about moderation are a substantive part of the problem. You would never have accepted this from other commenters; the same standard applies to you.
Lol, sure Jan.
FWIW, I’ve had what I thought were innocuous comments also land in moderation. My assumption is that I used some magic word that is on a spam filter.
Doesn’t happen often, but often enough that I notice it.
Well Pete, it is far more common lately. I guess we all have to live with bullshit Rayne and Marcy, do not thins cognizant.
“Thins Cognizant” = French brain-food snack
I’ve had some of mine do that. I’m not harassing the mods, because it something that happens randomly and they have enough work to do with people who do it INTENTIONALLY.
Yes, thanks, I understand the dynamics pretty well.
Mods: sorry for long post. I’ve tried to balance editing with clarity. I’m sure I failed.
Bmaz-
I began experiencing similar at the same time, and reached conclusions listed below, but did not speak sooner as the remedy is likely unwise to pursue (ask for reversal of recent changes to screening algorithm or lowering of false positive rate) and I was hoping it would resolve before now. Specifically, assuming:
1 – Ak**met (“Akmt” hereafter) is the flagger, as it claims below; and
2 – to adapt to evolving threats, Akmt tweaks its flagging send-to-moderation model or algorithm regularly, without notice; and
3 – ‘manifest content’ variables are more likely to be used in screening tools because they can be easily operationalized (e.g., “search for letter Z or Q in the user name”), making them easy to program into algorithms to validly deploy in high volume content analysis scenarios like comment moderation; and
4 – complex ‘latent content’ screening mechanisms are much less likely to be deployed in high volume content analysis because of the immense complexity for valid deployment involved in operationalizing the equivalent of (a)”read the full content of message” and then (b1) “analyze for proper tone” or (b2)”make ‘moral’ decisions about content” or (b3) “predict if it contains content Rayne won’t like”; and
5 – my send-to-moderation rate is SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR to yours; but
6 – should not be because at least four content-trust reliability predictors countenance widely different send-to-moderation rates for you (1st) and me (2nd):
(a) Historic usage in time: (20 years: 18 months)
(b) N of posts over time (> 1000 : < 100)
(c) Ave. comment length ( 1000 words)
(d) Ave. comments per post (5+: <1)
These assumptions along with observations:
7 – My having taught both college statistics for social sciences and content-analysis research methods, and
8 – "Herbert S. Zim’s Codes and Secret Writing and Robert Lewand’s Cryptological Mathematics, claim that x, q, and z are the letters you are least likely to encounter" in common computing. Others suggest 'j' instead of X.
Because 5 and 6 appear to be occurring together here, but should not be or SHOULD BE RARE, it suggests that latent content analysis (see 4 above) is LESS LIKELY to be causing your (and my) unacceptably high sent-to-moderation rate. Instead, it is more likely that:
9 – Username-letter-usage of "Z" and "Q" (and possibly also "X" or "J") was recently added to or elevated in moderation-flagging models used by Akmt, and possibly elevated higher than 6a through 6d anti-flag-countenancing variables.
In other words, Bmaz, I think my assumption 3 above explains the problem you've recently been experiencing.
To be clear, other than 5 occurring with 6, I have no evidentiary support for my conclusory hypothesis, but offer here, humbly, as an alternate hypothesis to yours, as I do believe this is much more likely to explain your recent over-abundant, and highly annoying, sent-to-moderation rate.
Perhaps more transparent to WordPress hosts and therefore testable, I researched online, but have not found any info on Akmt algorithms, which is logically consistent with security policies not forecasting to the public how they can be defeated. The only evidence, though insufficient, that could potentially support my hypothesis would be if other anecdotal reports from other Q or Z letter username users reported similar flag rates. But absent reports from them would not disprove, however. Similarly, if ExRacer or xyxyxyxy have experienced similar, it may provide insufficient, but anecdotal evidence in support, of X being recently added or elevated too.
10 – To remedy, if WordPress allows, Marcy could potentially ask Akmt to:
A. Drop this manifest-content username-letter variable from its screening algorithm
B. Lower its priority below 6a to 6d above
C. Conduct a utility versus false-positive assessment of this variable and drop or de-elevate it, if the false positive rate outweighs utility
D. Lower the false positive threshold if it appears unacceptably high
or Marcy could
E. Ask Q, Z, and X username utilizers (me, you, and others) to be patient until the threat diminishes and Akmt tweaks model on its own.
Only E comes with no risk to the site's security. A. through D. risk allowing some degree of crap through.
CORRECTION — 6(c) above is incorrect.
Html appears to have interpreted my less-than, greater-than math operators as display commands, disappearing the colon punctuation mark and deleting the text that should have appeared before the colon, causing it to loose the “(1st value: 2nd value)” comparative structure used in 6a, 6b, and 6d.
The corrected text, restoring the 1st value and colon, and replacing the math operators with bracketed text should read:
“(c) Average comment length ([less than]100 words : [greater than] 1000 words)”
Not entirely successful. Just break it up into “chapters” and nest them. Much easier to read than something this long and detailed, especially on a phone.
Also, the “.” in your user name is often used to substitute for something that would make a “bad” word.
Ak**met also learns from being corrected on the site, so if it filters on a user name and is consistently overridden by a mod, it should learn not to filter on that user name.
I have no idea if I’ve ever been caught by the Ak- algorithm, and I don’t really care, as I know that, unless I’m commenting on a dead thread (in which case it doesn’t matter,) I’ll get handled in a site-appropriate manner, and it saves a ton of effort for the moderators. I’m not in a hurry to get my comments posted, after all.
Askimet is generally not the problem. I will leave it at that because we don’t discuss site operations in detail for security reasons.
May I suggest returning to the topic of this post.
If I may, I’ve just been lurking here for 2 or 3 years. What’s interesting is in this last few or more months or even longer while this “argument” has been going on, bmaz has toned his comments to regular speak a lot and it’s amazing how much more powerful his written words & effect are. It’s VASTLY different from when the input of knowledge of the comment thread is negated by bmaz cussing & belittling people. Key word; comment thread.
I also think bmaz has not been listening to for example at one time Marcy saying to him “shitting on this site.” This was from a LONG TIME friend. Sometimes when a long time friend of immense intelligent points out, one could stop, think & listen.
Maybe Marcy could do a post: Is bmaz more effective when he doesn’t cuss & belittle thereby downing the point he’s trying to get across. Again: Key word; comment thread.
Just from my time here it’s astonishing how much more powerful his comments have been in this “moderation.” : )
I have lost a lot of respect for bmaz. I don’t care how smart he is, or isn’t. His knowledge isn’t worth listening to if all he can do is be a jerk to everyone here. Especially if all y’all are colleagues.
It honestly is a bad look for the blog. Descent within the ranks shouldn’t be aired out like dirty laundry. It’s gauche.
I think a bit of give-and-take between the posters and moderators is actually a good thing. But when it descends into name-calling as the only form of argument it becomes childish and not worthy of such an esteemed blog.
BTW, descent != dissent != decent.
Yeah? To both you and “Discontinued Barbie”, I have actually done this for a living. Have you? Take that as some “give and take”.
Shouldn’t a professional insult comic be funny, though?
I think Dave Chappelle and BMAZ are superior critics that are often misunderstood by those that judge far too quickly or discern the intent too slowly.
I have seen the bias against certain takes and people but I have learned to moderate when I speak up.
PS. The Barbie movie said some pertinent things about men and women’s relationships but most of the negative takes on the women characters were overlooked by women and not embraced by men. With the exception of the Ken song being rightfully picked as best by the critics. YMMV
While I think bmaz is ‘enjoying’ the consequences of substituting rudeness for expressing his considerable knowledge in a calm and instructive manner, (newbs you shall always have with you, so saith The Lord) this is also something which is best settled behind the scenes. So IMHO bmaz, Marcy, and Rayne, and especially bmaz need to take this and all future such exchanges to email. (Mods, feel free to delete this comment once all concerned have read it.)
I know if I posted something stupid, a simple “Bullshit” with, or without, a reason why my comment was bullshit, from ANY of the Regulars here (and we know who they are), would suffice to shut me up until I learned wtf I was so off-base about.
Bmaz, Marcy, Rayne, Earl, etc saying “bullshit” to some idiotic comment, or “Off-Topic” to a ramble of no interest or entertainment value to anyone but the poster, would work wonders.
Keep it short & simple
I care about this place. I’m invested precisely for the intelligence and humor you ALL possess. It’s f’ing nuts out there.
To the contentious principals: please declare peace.
Surely you must recognize what a resource you are, to the commenter community, and to those at large who derive unparalleled insights here.
Is it possible National security depends upon this site? (I kid you not!)
To descend into bitterness and bickering, things within your control, is a woeful, and really grievous, turn of events when we are all edgy about larger events seemingly beyond our control.
Very nice pivot from Schrödinger to Heisenberg’s Observation Effect.
Wink
Hunter’s fate lies in DE and with Judge Noreika and it seems that she’s not really sure what to do. I’m hoping she presses Wise about the Smirnov situation next time there’s a court date. If the investigation is over and Weiss reneged to chase a lie so egregious he had to indict the person then shouldn’t the plea/diversion be offered back or something close to it?
If I have your timeline right, it seems Weiss knew Smirnov was lying in September before Hunter was ever indicted. So Weiss indicted both the gun and tax charges after he knew Smirnov lied. It doesn’t seem like any of this is in good faith by the prosecution.
I don’t think it mattered to Weiss if Smirnov was truthful or not. He only charged Hunter because the SOL was about to run out. It’s the carrot – plead to the gun charge and out of my legal jurisdiction tax crimes and I’ll close the case and it won’t effect your father’s (the President) reelection, and the stick – throwing the book at him with charges that should have been filed years ago.
He cared enough to indict Smirnov. He could’ve kept it quiet and kept going after Hunter. How many of these informants get indicted for lying? It’s as rare as Hunter’s gun charges. This whole thing makes no sense when you look at the big picture. At first with the Smirnov indictment, I thought he was looking for an out but now it seems he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too by going after both of them.
Hunter has now lost his chance to plead out of his tax charges like everyone else who decides to take a plea. That’s how most tax cases end. He was taking responsibility for his misconduct. Now he’s screwed.
Hunter may be the first tax payer to face criminal charges after resolving his liability (including penalty and interest) since the entire tax code was enacted. He was going to plead misdemeanor which only become felony if willfulness can be proved. If Weiss had incontrovertible proof of willfulness he would have had him plead to that as well.
Which is proof Weiss reneged because of pressure coming from Capitol Hill. It’s literally the first prosecution of a sitting President’s family member. Apparently that wasn’t enough.
IDK. Because HB’s got exceptionally capable lawyers, I have a little faith in
i. the difficult-to-establish ‘willfulness’ element (“mens rea”) based on drug use,
ii. the prosecution’s incorrect attachment of 2016 mens rea to 2020 actus reus (or whatever the years actually were), and
iii. the rightful suppression of evidence that should follow from untraceable-custody laptop data that was not independently discovered;
resulting in jury acquittal. Or, if not, in an appellate reversal based on Scarsi abuse of discretion from the ‘incorrect’ rulings Marcy has been discussing, and upcoming mistakes he’ll make by erroneously allowing “iii.” evidence at trial. Appellate courts take wrongful immunity-denial cases very seriously, even if they don’t love reversing on 4th amendment (“iii.”) grounds.
But “screwed” — yes, in terms of years of unjust legal entanglements that potentially threatened his liberty and cost him millions in legal fees, and that continue to provide fodder for ongoing, relentless, public abuse by Republican officials who’ve lost their compass for morality and all sense of human decency.
I suspect that he would have left Smirnov off if Lowell hadn’t asked for discovery on the Brady side channel.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Brad Weinsheimer told Weiss had had to indict Smirnov if he wanted to indict Hunter on the tax charges. One of the problems with Durham is that he didn’t consider whether two FBI cyber guys who bolloxed the investigation into the Alfa Bank allegations lied to him, even though there was far more evidence of them doing so than that Michael Sussmann had lied.
Not the gun charges.
Those were September 14.
Smirnov’s interview was September 29.
But definitely the tax charges.
I thought he was indicted later in September or early October so my bad. Weiss’ office told Hunter’s lawyer in June investigation is over, 1023 was circulating through Congress at the same time, prosecution backs off the agreement in July, Smirnov lies to Weiss in September. This timeline isn’t rocket science.
This isn’t about Hunter, it’s the precedent this could potentially set that the government can just bend to political pressure and throw the book at people to throw them in prison.
A precedent a re-elected president Trump would take immediate advantage of, and never stop.
Exactly. Which is why this isn’t about Hunter. Who cares otherwise what happens to him. It would set the stage to just take minor offenses and throw the book at people for purely political reasons.
Impeachment efforts against Biden to even the score to just be able to ‘yeah, he was impeached also’ should be another dead giveaway.
Exactly. I have no investment in Hunter per se. It’s just that at every turn, I’m gobsmacked that this was allowed to occur.
Happy Friday, all – I am just here to once again thank the bloggers here (and commenters) for keeping it real and giving no quarter to bullshit and wasted words. With that, I must throw in a congratulations to Marcy for being the new go-to for the facts from mainstream heavy-hitters now – she is catching on, kicking ass and taking names! But this comes at a point when all of you, rather than high-fiving each other for many years’ worth of hard work and collaboration, acrimony is prevailing and bmaz’s presence here is scarce now. I’m not ashamed to admit that often I learn more from the comments section than from the topic posts themselves. Please work this out, you guys. Bmaz – YOU.ARE.MISSED.
Why did the prosecutors renege on the Diversion? My understanding is that the Diversion is regarding the gun crime. Could they have kept the Diversion then, after Noreika rejects the tax plea, charge for the tax crimes and begin the 1023 investigation that the FBI just requested a few weeks before the hearing?
No. All the immunity is on it. Gun crimes and tax crimes, along with the language that was intended to cover more.
I think Weiss lies in the Smirnov indictment when he suggests they only investigated the 1023 in July, at the request of the FBI.
I think he returned to it after Bill Barr intervened. In fact, they’re so squirrely about discovery pertaining to Barr that I would be thoroughly unsurprised if Barr called Weiss in June.
Do you mean ‘intervened’ via his Hemingway “The Federalist” interview in 2023? And not in his 2020 back channel to Brady that resulted in the Donohue demands Delaware be briefed by Brady?
I have to admit I don’t like missing inferences the first 5 times you lead us there, but boy it seems profound when I finally figure out a connection you’ve been leading us to make.
OMG. I feel gobsmacked (if this is right). And highly alliterated too!
I would be wildly unsurprised if Weiss is so squirrelly about Lowell’s request to subpoena Barr because his phone records might show contact with him or someone close to him.
Donoghue demands Delaware does Donald’s deeds… #deepstate
Weiss seems to have backed himself into a corner, either he lied or he was so incompetent at his job that he didn’t take the necessary investigative steps in 2020 to verify if the allegations even had the colour of truth. Either way, this doesn’t look good for the prosecution.
Wow, interesting. You really think Barr would make an actual phone call to Weiss office last June? As opposed to signalling in public or some sort of back channel contact.
I do think it’s possible. He had a number of conversations about the investigation, and whether Weiss needed to have SCO designation, before he left in 2020 — so it was always the case that Barr had more direct influence on Weiss than Garland, who has never spoken to him outside of the SCO discussion.
And Barr is pretty shameless.
Adding, remember that Ziegler aggressively walked back his claim that Barr had personally assigned the case to Delaware. I always assumed someone told him to do that.
Is it odd at all that the case was in Delaware at all?
If there were some sort of transactions with the UK company, would a financial transaction make its way through SDNY? Or if taxes are a precipitation, why not in DC or California where he lived?
Not only that but why was Rudy’s shit going through Pittsburgh? Why was Rudy even involved at all other than politics?
There is a reason why Wolf and Weiss wanted to plead out as well but enter stage right Comer and Jordan.
“And Barr is pretty shameless.”
I’ve always admired your capacity for understatement.
Although the issues were resolved without my having to resort to them, in my own civil case their was ample evidence in phone calls, and even something sent through the postal system.
I was so gobsmacked by how brazen officials could be that I’m pretty sure it caused the tumor on my adrenal gland (eventually removed) as a result. Some of those officials taunted me to my face. One even said they owned me. But I just kept plugging along. And, in the end, I was the last one standing.
So, like you, I can easily see Barr having communicated with Weiss as a distinct possibility or even probability.
SL, If your adrenal tumor was a pheochromocytoma, I don’t know how you managed to keep going. Any tumor sucks, of course. But a pheo makes you feel like you’re dying. I’m so glad you got through that mess.
I really hope Judge Noreika grants an evidentiary hearing. The truth about what happened behind the scenes in this case needs to come out.
Even if Barr did nothing and there was no communication at least everybody would know. It is absurd that’s it’s even a possibility that a former AG had a line open to a current US attorney from outside the DOJ. It’s why I find the argument that former prosecutors on tv say ‘it’s his father’s DOJ how can it be a political prosecution?’ insane. The tentacles of Trump/Barr DOJ are imbedded with people like Weiss and Brady.
I think if she were really considering that, she would have done it months ago.
I agree with that. I think she’s genuinely torn ruling on anything since nobody has ever seen anything like this before. I actually do feel bad for her being in the middle of this complicated situation where so much is at stake. A man’s liberty and a complete political firestorm. And that’s before you consider what kind of threats she might be facing that we can’t see. Remember after the plea was announced Jason Smith sent her a report and told her to not go forward with the plea deal. That would never happen to anybody else.
It was easy for Scarsi to be by the book and go forward. It’s not easy for Noreika who was actually in the courtroom in July and has watched how everything has unfolded.
Paper Poses
I realize a few Weiss guys deceived me,
With tenterhooks that I mistook for govt,
So take away the cowards,
Those who gave me:
Pretense, beside what they denied me of.
Paper poses, paper poses,
Oh how real those poses seem to be,
But they’re just disinformation,
Like disinformation charged to me.
I thought that they would see
when they’d discover,
They seemed so full of fairness
at the start,
But like a misled pose
that’s made of paper,
There isn’t any fairness in their hearts.
Paper poses, paper poses,
Oh how real those poses seem to be
But they’re just disinformation,
Like disinformation charged to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRrWHEwhU-0
“paper roses” (pocket trumpet cover)thank pre bailey el saksoponista..
It may be small, but it’s mighty!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL8QRH2smrk
“Paper Roses POCKET TRUMPET cover”
Bernard R Cuzzillo: Your 7:26 p.m. ET 07-APR-2024 comment will not clear for publication because it is off topic and likely to further disrupt this thread.
Discussion here should focus on the Hunter Biden cases before Judges Maryellen Noreika and Mark Scarsi.
Thank you.