|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jul 26, 2023 1:01:25 GMT
Ok wait....so some artist makes awful naked statues of his own image of Trump....they were not actual photos of the real life man in the nude. Not ok at all really, but still not the same thing. And now you're saying "tax fraud" so he should be shamed - by showing naked photos of him to the entire world? WTF? So now if you committed tax fraud and they showed naked pictures of you to shame you, you'd be ok with that? I don't care that they were payments to a prostitute - if he claimed they were payments to a paralegal, but they were not, then yes, by all means, prosecute him for it. He should do the time for doing the crime. But because he paid a prostitute that makes it ok to show naked photos of him? I just can't even wrap my head around how this is remotely ok. To be clear, I do not think its okay for what she did here and I'm not defending her. My response to "it's all about shaming him", was that he committed tax fraud he should be ashamed. I didn't separate the 2 issues to make that clear enough. It doesn't matter that it wasn't a photo of trump. It was close enough to his actual shape and showing off a likeness of his naked body to be just as humiliating. It was done in public, at sites all across the country. Again the location doesn't matter. Just as humiliating. Just as lacking in decorum. Some of you had no issue with that and took great pleasure in it, even hoped for more of it. And had no issue when peas were wishing death and ill will on Trump when he had covid. In fact, you personally, you and many others didn't object and took great glee in the situation. So the astonishment and objection NOW to it "being even remotely ok" is amazingly hypocritical and laughable. One important factor that you aren’t taking into account is how trump treats people. I generally try not to encourage things like making fun of Trump’s appearance, even if I initially think they are funny. However, I am much more likely to laugh at something or give it a pass because of how Trump and his kids treat others. To my knowledge, Hunter Biden stays to himself and doesn’t mKe fun of others day in and day out as if humiliating others was his full time job.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Jul 26, 2023 5:53:13 GMT
As near as I can tell this was about Hunter Biden and these two IRS whistleblowers are claiming the DOJ dragged their feet in investigating Hunter Biden’s taxes. But apparently the two whistleblowers were a bust and does not include the whistleblower that has been indicted for gun running. And what the nude photos have to do with any of this I have no idea. No, they aren't a bust. 2 whistleblowers who's testimony, under oath, matches each other, with documentation that corroborates their testimony. Documentation that includes 5 other people. Not to mention Tony Bobulinski's statements also corroborates their under oath testimony. You say that the whistleblowers are a bust? What are you basing that opinion on?
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Jul 26, 2023 6:00:26 GMT
He committed tax fraud by claiming the woman in the picture, a prostitute, Hunter committed tax fraud by claiming his payments to her were a payments to a paralegal. He committed tax fraud. He SHOULD be shamed. Then by all means, show the documents regarding this alleged tax fraud, show the paper trail of this alleged fraud, interview the whistleblowers, find other witnesses to corroborate. The IRS and the committee have his tax returns. If Hunter did deduct expenses for an escort or a sex club, it should be relatively easy to find and show. The only evidence that his tax fraud had anything to do with a prostitute or sex club comes from 1 whistleblower. No one else including 50-60 other people involved in the investigation have corroborated that story. Hunter reached a plea deal with the US Justice Department and confessed to failure to pay taxes and lying on a gun permit at the end of a 5 year investigation that started under the Trump administration led by a Trump appointed US attorney. Nude photos have nothing to do with that investigation and charges. Republicans are just mad that's all that was found and are looking for other ways to shame the president's son and by extension, President Biden. Even if there was a prostitute or sex club involved, (and this is a really big if because so far there is very little evidence) nude photos were absolutely not necessary in a public hearing. There is no justifiable reason for showing his photos. Your weak attempts to justify this say a lot about you. Ziegler, under oath, "There were multiple examples of prostitutes that were ordered basically, AND WE HAVE ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THAT WHERE HE would pay for these prostitutes, would book them a flight where even the flight ticket showed their name. And then he expensed those." Shapley, under oath, "We went out and followed that money, it was for a sex club membership in LA" Damon Lawner, who founded the exclusive SNCTM sex club in LA received an IRS subpoena as part of the agency’s tax probe.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jul 26, 2023 17:52:50 GMT
And you think threats and/or millions of dollars cannot alter testimony? You are living under a rock!!
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Jul 26, 2023 22:07:32 GMT
If he is guilty of tax fraud then charge him but he is a private citizen and that’s not the job of congress to go after him. Many commit tax fraud but don’t end up getting shammed in congress. I am not defending him but many have done similar things with no consequences.
I remember reading not long ago that the reason he wasn’t charged was because he had since paid what he owed plus penalties. If this is true then like with other even larger offenders he won’t serve jail time because he has now paid the taxes. I’m all for equal justice for all but that includes both sides of the isle even members of congress, judges and higher but again for all not just one party. No one should be above the law.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Jul 27, 2023 0:09:57 GMT
And you think threats and/or millions of dollars cannot alter testimony? You are living under a rock!! The testimony has dated communications and receipts to back them up. What are you talking about? He WAS charged and was going to plead guilty. His plea deal fell through this morning because his lawyer was trying to get total immunity for anything that would ever come up in the future, including possible Foreign Agent Registration Act violations (the same thing they want to jail one of the witnesses for) But the judge said no to that absurdity. He was also allowed to get away with other tax fraud because they let the statute of limitations run out while they covered for him and obstructed justice. That's what the hearings are all about. Someone on his lawyer's team called the court last night pretending to be someone else and trying to get testimony from the hearing removed so the judge wouldn't have that while considering the plea deal.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jul 27, 2023 1:36:59 GMT
Your brain is beyond warped...
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jul 27, 2023 8:45:18 GMT
Seriously, even for you, your defense of Republicans including displaying nude photos is crazy. And the conspiracy theory level of attacks on Hunter Biden are really unhinged. Maybe stop watching Fox or whatever conservative media you’re listening to/watching/reading.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Jul 27, 2023 10:49:29 GMT
Your brain is beyond warped... Are you saying what morecowbell said isn't true? If so, you really need to expand your sources of information beyond Twitter and your left wing RawStory.
Speaking of warped brains and conspiracy theories:
"I just wondered if someone set up those companies and paid themselves and not the Bidens? Or will they just say the Bidens committed tax fraud by not reporting the monies?"
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jul 27, 2023 13:22:46 GMT
The judge in Hunter Biden's case brought up a discrepancy in immunity. After a discussion, Hunter Biden's lawyer agreed to the narrow terms of immunity defined by the prosecutors and limited to offenses related to the investigation of his tax returns dating back to 2014 and illegal possession of a firearm. The judge did not accept the deal because of how a violation of the gun offense and probation would be handled. www.nytimes.com/live/2023/07/26/us/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges#hunter-biden-plea-deal-chargesAfter the break, Hunter Biden’s legal team said the agreement covered his liability related to tax offenses from 2014 through 2019, and covered drug and gun crimes. The judge asked Hunter Biden if he had been promised any other protections to entice him to plead guilty, and he said, “No, your honor.”
Then the judge pressed both sides on provisions included in both prongs of the agreement, including why the tax deal was brought under a statute that removes the court’s ability to vet it, while the gun deal includes a requirement that the court decide whether Hunter Biden has breached the deal. Judge Noreika said that could inappropriately put her in the position of making a decision normally left for prosecutors.
“I have concerns about the constitutionality of this provision, so I have concerns about the constitutionality of this agreement,” she said. www.nytimes.com/live/2023/07/26/us/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges#hunter-biden-plea-deal-chargesAfter an official recess was declared, Mr. Clark agreed to the narrower terms on Mr. Biden’s behalf.But Judge Noreika still appeared to be unconvinced. She turned her attention to the fine print of the deal that had been struck on the gun offense, requiring Mr. Biden to avoid using drugs or owning a firearms during the two-year diversion program.She objected strenuously to how a violation of its terms would be handled.Typically, the Justice Department could independently verify any breach and bring charges. But Mr. Biden’s team, concerned that the department might abuse that authority if Mr. Trump is re-elected, successfully pushed to give that power to Judge Noreika, arguing that she would be a more neutral arbiter.Judge Noreika suggested that such an arrangement could be unconstitutional because it might give her prosecutorial powers, which were vested in the executive branch by the Constitution.“I’m not doing something that gets me outside my lane of my branch of government,” said the judge, adding, “Go back and work on that.”www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/hunter-biden-arrives-at-a-delaware-court-where-hes-expected-to-plead-guilty-to-tax-crimesU.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, said she was concerned about the language in the diversion agreement and suggested the lawyers get back together and discuss it.“I think having you guys talk more makes sense,” she said.
www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/hunter-biden-pleads-not-guilty-to-tax-charges-after-judge-questions-plea-deal-00108301The lawyers huddled, and shortly after noon, the deal was back on track. Clark said Biden’s team now agreed with the prosecutors that the scope of the agreement was charges on the gun, tax issues, and drug use.
But later in the hearing, the deal hit another snag when the judge made clear that she had concerns about her role in the unusual agreement.
She expressed discomfort with both the prosecution and defense asserting she had no role in deciding whether to accept the diversion agreement.
She told the lawyers to brief her on why the plea deal should be categorized under what’s referred to as “subsection B” — a provision of federal judicial rules that covers typical plea deals. And she asked them to look into the possibility that they could create a pretrial diversion agreement that didn’t require the court’s involvement before charging Biden with a crime for any potential violation of the deal.
“I cannot accept the plea agreement today,” she concluded.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jul 27, 2023 13:50:48 GMT
The phone call was a misunderstanding. Biden's lawyer argued that the brief should be sealed because it contains secret grand jury information. www.politico.com/news/2023/07/25/hunter-biden-judge-plea-deal-phone-call-00108184Latham denied any misconduct, saying the firm’s employee identified herself as a Latham staffer and called from a law firm phone that typically displays “LATHAM” on the caller ID. The firm said there must have been an “unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication” between the employee and court staff.
“The matter under consideration appears to stem from an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication between a staff member at our firm and employees of the Court. We have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is there was no misrepresentation,” Latham partner Matthew Salerno wrote, stressing that Bengels is not part of the team of lawyers assigned to the Hunter Biden matter.
Bengels also submitted a formal declaration denying she misrepresented herself.
Kittila claimed that all the information about Hunter Biden contained in Smith’s brief is already public on the House Ways and Means Committee website. But Christopher Clark, Biden’s lead attorney, wrote that was beside the point if court rules forbid putting it on the public docket.
“Most troubling is that you have sought to append to a filing on the public docket hundreds of pages of documents, many of which contain grand jury secret information and confidential taxpayer information,” Clark wrote in a letter to Kittila also contained in the court docket. “We have alerted you to this issue and you have refused to file these materials under seal, frivolously claiming that because a congressional committee has improperly disseminated these materials, they no longer need protection. Your position is baseless and abusive.”
“I am completely confident that I never indicated that I was calling from Mr. Kittila’s firm or that I worked with him in any way,” wrote Bengels, who is a member of the New York bar, according to a state database and Latham’s website.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jul 27, 2023 14:12:26 GMT
Your brain is beyond warped... Are you saying what morecowbell said isn't true? If so, you really need to expand your sources of information beyond Twitter and your left wing RawStory.
Speaking of warped brains and conspiracy theories:
"I just wondered if someone set up those companies and paid themselves and not the Bidens? Or will they just say the Bidens committed tax fraud by not reporting the monies?"
More often then not I read the original source, but on my phone it is far easier to quote/include the rawstory piece. You can note the I will sometimes include the original link. I admit that I have difficulty editing on my phone, it is just too small. Sorry this offends you...
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jul 27, 2023 14:29:39 GMT
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 27, 2023 15:10:03 GMT
The judge in Hunter Biden's case brought up a discrepancy in immunity. After a discussion, Hunter Biden's lawyer agreed to the narrow terms of immunity defined by the prosecutors and limited to offenses related to the investigation of his tax returns dating back to 2014 and illegal possession of a firearm. The judge did not accept the deal because of how a violation of the gun offense and probation would be handled. www.nytimes.com/live/2023/07/26/us/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges#hunter-biden-plea-deal-chargesAfter the break, Hunter Biden’s legal team said the agreement covered his liability related to tax offenses from 2014 through 2019, and covered drug and gun crimes. The judge asked Hunter Biden if he had been promised any other protections to entice him to plead guilty, and he said, “No, your honor.”
Then the judge pressed both sides on provisions included in both prongs of the agreement, including why the tax deal was brought under a statute that removes the court’s ability to vet it, while the gun deal includes a requirement that the court decide whether Hunter Biden has breached the deal. Judge Noreika said that could inappropriately put her in the position of making a decision normally left for prosecutors.
“I have concerns about the constitutionality of this provision, so I have concerns about the constitutionality of this agreement,” she said. www.nytimes.com/live/2023/07/26/us/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges#hunter-biden-plea-deal-chargesAfter an official recess was declared, Mr. Clark agreed to the narrower terms on Mr. Biden’s behalf.But Judge Noreika still appeared to be unconvinced. She turned her attention to the fine print of the deal that had been struck on the gun offense, requiring Mr. Biden to avoid using drugs or owning a firearms during the two-year diversion program.She objected strenuously to how a violation of its terms would be handled.Typically, the Justice Department could independently verify any breach and bring charges. But Mr. Biden’s team, concerned that the department might abuse that authority if Mr. Trump is re-elected, successfully pushed to give that power to Judge Noreika, arguing that she would be a more neutral arbiter.Judge Noreika suggested that such an arrangement could be unconstitutional because it might give her prosecutorial powers, which were vested in the executive branch by the Constitution.“I’m not doing something that gets me outside my lane of my branch of government,” said the judge, adding, “Go back and work on that.”www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/hunter-biden-arrives-at-a-delaware-court-where-hes-expected-to-plead-guilty-to-tax-crimesU.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, said she was concerned about the language in the diversion agreement and suggested the lawyers get back together and discuss it.“I think having you guys talk more makes sense,” she said.
www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/hunter-biden-pleads-not-guilty-to-tax-charges-after-judge-questions-plea-deal-00108301The lawyers huddled, and shortly after noon, the deal was back on track. Clark said Biden’s team now agreed with the prosecutors that the scope of the agreement was charges on the gun, tax issues, and drug use.
But later in the hearing, the deal hit another snag when the judge made clear that she had concerns about her role in the unusual agreement.
She expressed discomfort with both the prosecution and defense asserting she had no role in deciding whether to accept the diversion agreement.
She told the lawyers to brief her on why the plea deal should be categorized under what’s referred to as “subsection B” — a provision of federal judicial rules that covers typical plea deals. And she asked them to look into the possibility that they could create a pretrial diversion agreement that didn’t require the court’s involvement before charging Biden with a crime for any potential violation of the deal.
“I cannot accept the plea agreement today,” she concluded.I’ll be saying things here that give me no pleasure (because I’m a Democrat), but I have to say them because the failure here is in the defense side, not the DOJ side. In all fairness, I can understand why the judge was concerned about the handling of a potential breach in the diversion agreement. I don’t know why defense thought it’s a good idea to involve the judge in fact-finding. It’s not in a district judge’s purview to determine the violative behavior that would nullify a diversion agreement; that’s the job of the DOJ. She is correct that it’s a separation of powers issue. Notwithstanding that defense is concerned about a future DOJ headed by a Trump appointee not being impartial, I’m sorry, but that’s beside the point. The purpose of diversion is rehabilitation. It’s inducing the defendant to change his behavior so he doesn’t end up in prison. If a defendant fails to comply with the terms of the program (for example, breaching the terms by taking drugs again), then he has to be held accountable regardless of who’s heading the DOJ. Re the immunity disagreement between the two parties, again, it’s defense that failed. If their understanding was that blanket immunity is part of the deal, meaning any future charges against Hunter are foreclosed, then they should have clarified that and negotiated it with the DOJ prior to the hearing. The reason I say this is because from the time the plea deal became public until yesterday, it was already being reported that the DOJ (Weiss) was saying the investigation is continuing. So it was already obvious that as far as the DOJ is concerned, only the tax and gun issues have been resolved via the plea deal. If what defense wanted was to immunize Hunter from any further charges resulting from the continuing investigation, they had weeks to hammer that out with the DOJ, but they didn’t. Again, I’m sorry, but I just have to say what I think.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jul 27, 2023 15:21:55 GMT
The judge in Hunter Biden's case brought up a discrepancy in immunity. After a discussion, Hunter Biden's lawyer agreed to the narrow terms of immunity defined by the prosecutors and limited to offenses related to the investigation of his tax returns dating back to 2014 and illegal possession of a firearm. The judge did not accept the deal because of how a violation of the gun offense and probation would be handled. www.nytimes.com/live/2023/07/26/us/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges#hunter-biden-plea-deal-chargesAfter the break, Hunter Biden’s legal team said the agreement covered his liability related to tax offenses from 2014 through 2019, and covered drug and gun crimes. The judge asked Hunter Biden if he had been promised any other protections to entice him to plead guilty, and he said, “No, your honor.”
Then the judge pressed both sides on provisions included in both prongs of the agreement, including why the tax deal was brought under a statute that removes the court’s ability to vet it, while the gun deal includes a requirement that the court decide whether Hunter Biden has breached the deal. Judge Noreika said that could inappropriately put her in the position of making a decision normally left for prosecutors.
“I have concerns about the constitutionality of this provision, so I have concerns about the constitutionality of this agreement,” she said. www.nytimes.com/live/2023/07/26/us/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges#hunter-biden-plea-deal-chargesAfter an official recess was declared, Mr. Clark agreed to the narrower terms on Mr. Biden’s behalf.But Judge Noreika still appeared to be unconvinced. She turned her attention to the fine print of the deal that had been struck on the gun offense, requiring Mr. Biden to avoid using drugs or owning a firearms during the two-year diversion program.She objected strenuously to how a violation of its terms would be handled.Typically, the Justice Department could independently verify any breach and bring charges. But Mr. Biden’s team, concerned that the department might abuse that authority if Mr. Trump is re-elected, successfully pushed to give that power to Judge Noreika, arguing that she would be a more neutral arbiter.Judge Noreika suggested that such an arrangement could be unconstitutional because it might give her prosecutorial powers, which were vested in the executive branch by the Constitution.“I’m not doing something that gets me outside my lane of my branch of government,” said the judge, adding, “Go back and work on that.”www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/hunter-biden-arrives-at-a-delaware-court-where-hes-expected-to-plead-guilty-to-tax-crimesU.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, said she was concerned about the language in the diversion agreement and suggested the lawyers get back together and discuss it.“I think having you guys talk more makes sense,” she said.
www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/hunter-biden-pleads-not-guilty-to-tax-charges-after-judge-questions-plea-deal-00108301The lawyers huddled, and shortly after noon, the deal was back on track. Clark said Biden’s team now agreed with the prosecutors that the scope of the agreement was charges on the gun, tax issues, and drug use.
But later in the hearing, the deal hit another snag when the judge made clear that she had concerns about her role in the unusual agreement.
She expressed discomfort with both the prosecution and defense asserting she had no role in deciding whether to accept the diversion agreement.
She told the lawyers to brief her on why the plea deal should be categorized under what’s referred to as “subsection B” — a provision of federal judicial rules that covers typical plea deals. And she asked them to look into the possibility that they could create a pretrial diversion agreement that didn’t require the court’s involvement before charging Biden with a crime for any potential violation of the deal.
“I cannot accept the plea agreement today,” she concluded.I’ll be saying things here that give me no pleasure (because I’m a Democrat), but I have to say them because the failure here is in the defense side, not the DOJ side. In all fairness, I can understand why the judge was concerned about the handling of a potential breach in the diversion agreement. I don’t know why defense thought it’s a good idea to involve the judge in fact-finding. It’s not in a district judge’s purview to determine the violative behavior that would nullify a diversion agreement; that’s the job of the DOJ. She is correct that it’s a separation of powers issue. Notwithstanding that defense is concerned about a future DOJ headed by a Trump appointee not being impartial, I’m sorry, but that’s beside the point. The purpose of diversion is rehabilitation. It’s inducing the defendant to change his behavior so he doesn’t end up in prison. If a defendant fails to comply with the terms of the program (for example, breaching the terms by taking drugs again), then he has to be held accountable regardless of who’s heading the DOJ. Re the immunity disagreement between the two parties, again, it’s defense that failed. If their understanding was that blanket immunity is part of the deal, meaning any future charges against Hunter are foreclosed, then they should have clarified that and negotiated it with the DOJ prior to the hearing. The reason I say this is because from the time the plea deal became public until yesterday, it was already being reported that the DOJ (Weiss) was saying the investigation is continuing. So it was already obvious that as far as the DOJ is concerned, only the tax and gun issues have been resolved via the plea deal. If what defense wanted was to immunize Hunter from any further charges resulting from the continuing investigation, they had weeks to hammer that out with the DOJ, but they didn’t. Again, I’m sorry, but I just have to say what I think. I always appreciate your perspective, especially a legal one. Without a doubt, the defense team made some mistakes and it makes sense that the judge wanted them to clarify things. I was only trying to point out some factual inaccuracies and falsehoods in morecowbell's statements.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jul 27, 2023 15:29:52 GMT
lizacreates thank you. The truth IS important. The judge actually kept Hunter from a disaster. Everyone I have heard so far has said she did her job well.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 27, 2023 16:15:38 GMT
lizacreates thank you. The truth IS important. The judge actually kept Hunter from a disaster. Everyone I have heard so far has said she did her job well. IMO, she did. Any district judge worth his/her salt would have questioned that plea deal. I don’t know what will happen in the near future. Maybe a revised deal will pass muster, I don’t really know. Both sides were given 30 days to submit briefs to clarify everything. All I know right now is that Hunter said yesterday in court that if future charges will be brought, he will not assent to a plea deal, in which case, he will be facing a trial on the tax issues. I’m not really sure if this is a good idea or not. I’m thinking a plea deal, no matter how narrow the immunity provision may end up being, would still be his best bet. Right now, his deal is the two tax charges are downgraded to misdemeanors, failure to pay taxes. If he goes to trial, those charges become felony tax evasion. On the other hand, if this goes to trial, the burden is on prosecution to prove what’s termed mens rea, which is criminal intent and in IRS-related prosecution is called willfulness. That’s hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because that delves into the defendant’s state of mind. How can Weiss establish mens rea when Hunter was addled by crack cocaine almost daily at that time (Hunter himself said he was on crack every fifteen minutes)? How can Weiss prove cognizance and willfulness then with that state of mind? The mens rea burden is not insignificant; that’s why Weiss agreed to a plea deal. It’s a gamble for Hunter either way.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Jul 27, 2023 21:31:25 GMT
The phone call was a misunderstanding. Biden's lawyer argued that the brief should be sealed because it contains secret grand jury information. www.politico.com/news/2023/07/25/hunter-biden-judge-plea-deal-phone-call-00108184Latham denied any misconduct, saying the firm’s employee identified herself as a Latham staffer and called from a law firm phone that typically displays “LATHAM” on the caller ID. The firm said there must have been an “unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication” between the employee and court staff.
“The matter under consideration appears to stem from an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication between a staff member at our firm and employees of the Court. We have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is there was no misrepresentation,” Latham partner Matthew Salerno wrote, stressing that Bengels is not part of the team of lawyers assigned to the Hunter Biden matter.
Bengels also submitted a formal declaration denying she misrepresented herself.
Kittila claimed that all the information about Hunter Biden contained in Smith’s brief is already public on the House Ways and Means Committee website. But Christopher Clark, Biden’s lead attorney, wrote that was beside the point if court rules forbid putting it on the public docket.
“Most troubling is that you have sought to append to a filing on the public docket hundreds of pages of documents, many of which contain grand jury secret information and confidential taxpayer information,” Clark wrote in a letter to Kittila also contained in the court docket. “We have alerted you to this issue and you have refused to file these materials under seal, frivolously claiming that because a congressional committee has improperly disseminated these materials, they no longer need protection. Your position is baseless and abusive.”
“I am completely confident that I never indicated that I was calling from Mr. Kittila’s firm or that I worked with him in any way,” wrote Bengels, who is a member of the New York bar, according to a state database and Latham’s website."In court filings, Kittila said he was “deeply concerned” by the development and attached an email from the clerk’s office indicating Bengels had pretended to be calling from the other firm. He also pushed back on the need to seal the documents in question, saying they were already public before they were submitted to the court.“The exhibits that were filed have been public since June 22, 2023, following an approved vote of the House Ways and Means Committee. Moreover, the documents that were made public were redacted by both counsel for the minority and the majority members of the Ways and Means Committee,” Kittila wrote." ...From The HillIsn't it funny how the ONLY benefit from this "misunderstanding" would have been that the judge wouldn't see the whistleblowers testimony. 🤔🙄
|
|