25 Oct 23
@jj-adams saidThe only people who take plea deals are people who know they're going to jail otherwise because the authorities have the evidence to put them away.
They're being threatened with prison unless they plead guilty and take a sweetheart deal to testify against Trump.
Yeah nothing fishy going on there.
The only reason to do a plea deal is to avoid jail time. They're busted and they know they're busted.
25 Oct 23
@wajoma saidSteps in the Federal Criminal Process
We should take a moment to really appreciate what screwball suzi said here:
"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.
Plea Bargaining
When the Government has a strong case, the Government may offer the defendant a plea deal to avoid trial and perhaps reduce his exposure to a more lengthy sentence.
A defendant may only plead guilty if they actually committed the crime and admits to doing so in open court before the judge. When the defendant admits to the crime, they agree they are guilty and they agree that they may be “sentenced” by the judge presiding over the court — the only person authorized to impose a sentence. Sometimes the Government will agree, as part of a plea agreement, not to recommend an enhanced sentence (such as additional time in prison for certain reasons) but it is left up to the judge to determine how the defendant will be punished.
If a defendant pleads guilty, there is no trial, but the next step is to prepare for a sentencing hearing.
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/pleabargaining
@wajoma saidYou really haven't a clue how the law works.
We should take a moment to really appreciate what screwball suzi said here:
"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.
When the prosecution has such a strong case that the defence knows it has no reasonable chance of disputing it, "beyond a reasonable doubt", then the defence can offer to turn "state's witness" and hope for a lesser sentence. This is no "incentive to lie"; it's recognising that you committed a crime and taking a step to do what you should have done all along, which was to cooperate with the legal authorities.
Now, in the case of Powell, she is on record saying that no reasonable person would have believed Trump's lies about election fraud, and her defence, as absurd as it now seems, was that she had an unlimited right of freedom of speech to propagate such lies. First, there is no such unlimited right; freedom of speech does not cover shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre with intent to cause a stampede when there is no fire. The judges have ruled consistently that shouting "stop the steal! go to the Capitol on Jan. 6th and stop the certification process!" was, in effect, equivalent to shouting "FIRE!" in a theatre, because there was no massive fraud--and Powell knew that.
And second, what she's is charged with is tampering with sealed voting machines. She was caught on video doing just that. The defence hadn't a leg to stand on, hence the plea bargain.
25 Oct 23
@jj-adams saidYeah sure thing with their top notch lawyers they are worried about being flung in jail on flimsy evidence, hell some of them ARE lawyers they are cutting deals because the jig is up and they want to jump ship before the big orange rat hits the water
They're being threatened with prison unless they plead guilty and take a sweetheart deal to testify against Trump.
Yeah nothing fishy going on there.
25 Oct 23
@suzianne saidEspecially all these lawyers. They are fully aware of the pros and cons of guilty pleas.
The only people who take plea deals are people who know they're going to jail otherwise because the authorities have the evidence to put them away.
The only reason to do a plea deal is to avoid jail time. They're busted and they know they're busted.
@wildgrass saidMore to the point: They should have been fully aware that what they were doing, that what Trump wanted them to do, was illegal. Clearly, they, like John Dean before them, were operating in a moral vacuum under the toxic influence of blind ambition.
Especially all these lawyers. They are fully aware of the pros and cons of guilty pleas.
26 Oct 23
@suzianne saidscrewy suzi to the rescue.
Steps in the Federal Criminal Process
Plea Bargaining
When the Government has a strong case, the Government may offer the defendant a plea deal to avoid trial and perhaps reduce his exposure to a more lengthy sentence.
A defendant may only plead guilty if they actually committed the crime and admits to doing so in open court before the judge. When the defendant admits ...[text shortened]... is to prepare for a sentencing hearing.
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/pleabargaining
Do you know how debates work, I wasn't arguing that it occurs I was pointing out the corrupt nature of it. All you've got is a drone like 'that's the law'.
No shyte sherlock
26 Oct 23
@Wajoma
There are subtle things you don't know about like the tactical situation with a state conducting a trial with 18 defendants at the same time. So if they can convince folks to flip that is one less on the docket. 3 or 4 so far brings that down to 15 or so, every flip makes it easier to do the whole case.
So it is in the state's interest to lower the case load.
There is no doubt they are all guilty, it is not like reasonable doubt or some such and they all know it except the head snake.
26 Oct 23
@sonhouse saidOh yes, the DA very definitely has a deep strategy, and the tactical maneuvers are part of it -- just like one of Alekhine's games.
@Wajoma
There are subtle things you don't know about like the tactical situation with a state conducting a trial with 18 defendants at the same time. So if they can convince folks to flip that is one less on the docket. 3 or 4 so far brings that down to 15 or so, every flip makes it easier to do the whole case.
So it is in the state's interest to lower the case load.
Th ...[text shortened]... all guilty, it is not like reasonable doubt or some such and they all know it except the head snake.
It's not just a matter of reducing the case load, but of getting more and more corroborative testimony on board. Trump is sure to entangle himself in perjeries trying to discredit so many witnesses; he'll be like Captain Queeg if he ever he gets on the witness stand himself.
26 Oct 23
@moonbus saidIndeed, The Caine Mutiny (1954) is a great film.
Oh yes, the DA very definitely has a deep strategy, and the tactical maneuvers are part of it -- just like one of Alekhine's games.
It's not just a matter of reducing the case load, but of getting more and more corroborative testimony on board. Trump is sure to entangle himself in perjeries trying to discredit so many witnesses; he'll be like Captain Queeg if he ever he gets on the witness stand himself.
I'd like to read the 1951 book by Herman Wouk, I bet it is even better.
@suzianne saidYes, there were many fine performances in the film. Fred MacMurray is memorable as the affable coward. Some critics thought Bogey was trying too hard for a second Oscar, but I think it is one of his better roles. I haven’t read the book either. But I’ll tell you this, if Trump gets back into the WH, there might just be a mutiny. I can hardly wait to hear what Mark Meadows knows about his former boss, who evidently cracked under pressure, like Queeg.
Indeed, The Caine Mutiny (1954) is a great film.
I'd like to read the 1951 book by Herman Wouk, I bet it is even better.