@ponderable saidYou do realise what you're saying there. How reliable is information when you're threatening a person with jail, there's a very big incentive to lie, to do anything, to say anything to avoid jail.
Question for the remaining group: At which point will the good deals end? So I would expect others to follow suit to avoid jail time.
199d
@wajoma saidEspecially if you are guilty. One might think that if one is not guilty, they would be looking forward to the chance to clear their name. A plea deal is generally taken by those who are guilty to avoid being found guilty and doing time.
You do realise what you're saying there. How reliable is information when you're threatening a person with jail, there's a very big incentive to lie, to do anything, to say anything to avoid jail.
I find it pretty disgusting that the bigmouth libertarian assumes there's some sort of railroading going on. Not so concerned about justice, are you?
199d
@kewpie saidUnremarkably, he's spent about half his life in court. Either suing someone or being sued. He had a free ride free from the court carousel while president, that's what he wants again.
Just like Trump does. And he's exceedingly good at it.
199d
@shavixmir saidThe big news is that Mark Meadows, Trump's chief of staff, has accepted an immunity deal for his testimony. This is the one I've been hoping for.
So Cohen is in court with trump…
Oh. Wait. That’s a different court case altogether?
Deary me, if ever there was fire where there is smoke… and there’s so much smoke, I can only guess that trump is an Australian bush fire.
198d
@Wajoma
That testimony gets backed up with emails, corroborating testimony from others in the room when whatever was said was said and memo's written ATT and so forth. Any one testimony can be cross examined and maybe good lawyers can punch holes in said testimony but when there are 17 or so all saying basically the same thing, a jury would have no choice but to pronounce the defendant guilty,.
198d
@sonhouse saidThen there's no need for a deal. Do you mean to say things can't be tipped one way or the other by sworn testimony that someone gives to avoid prison? is that what you're saying?
@Wajoma
That testimony gets backed up with emails, corroborating testimony from others in the room when whatever was said was said and memo's written ATT and so forth. Any one testimony can be cross examined and maybe good lawyers can punch holes in said testimony but when there are 17 or so all saying basically the same thing, a jury would have no choice but to pronounce the defendant guilty,.
If that's the case then there should be no special favours.
@wajoma saidThis how you get Mafia bosses -- you offer the lower-downs reduced sentences in exchange for their testimony. If necessary, you also offer them a new identity in another town to prevent the bosses from killing them in retaliation.
Then there's no need for a deal. Do you mean to say things can't be tipped one way or the other by sworn testimony that someone gives to avoid prison? is that what you're saying?
If that's the case then there should be no special favours.
Standard procedure.
198d
@suzianne saidWe should take a moment to really appreciate what screwball suzi said here:
Especially if you are guilty. One might think that if one is not guilty, they would be looking forward to the chance to clear their name. A plea deal is generally taken by those who are guilty to avoid being found guilty and doing time.
I find it pretty disgusting that the bigmouth libertarian assumes there's some sort of railroading going on. Not so concerned about justice, are you?
"A plea deal is generally taken by those who are guilty to avoid being found guilty and doing time."
Either way it's a corruption, either an innocent person lies to avoid wrongful punishment, or as screwy suzi says here, a guilty person by some majic becomes not guilty.
The incentive is to lie.
