Originally posted by: Boilerman
Does any resident Liberal know that the judge asked the prosecutor if he could state precedent on such a plee agreement? Does any Lib know what the prosecutor stated in his reply? Of course you don't. I scoured the internet for 30 minutes reading NY Times, USA Today, NBC, CBS, ABC articles and more. Amazingly, only the NY Post mentioned that the prosecutor stated that there is no precedent for such a deal. Shocking....that's sarcasm.
The interested reader can find the video of this exchange on YouTube. Our Liberals won't bother, as they already knew this was a crooked deal. They don't care.
Once again, the DOJ running cover for their crooked family.
You call it "crooked" because of your bias, which prevents you from thinking objectively. Your stupidity is also a crippling obstacle.
The reason why there is no precedent for this deal is that there is no precedent for this prosecution. Simple gun ownership not connected with any crime has NEVER been prosecuted in that jurisdiction or any other. So the case was very weak, which is why the prosecution was so willing to cut a deal.
You see, Boilerboob, a defendant who has been charged with a crime (in this case, gun possession) that no one in similar circumstances has ever been charged with before can claim selective prosecution as a defense, as such prosecution denies the defendant his right to equal treatment under the law. Hunter would have easily won on appeal if they pushed for a more severe sentence.
So if anything was "crooked," it was the prosecution, a gang of conservitards seeking revenge for the impeachments of their orange god. That's the reality, Boilerboob.