Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 486  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 21, 2023, 12:05:52 AM »
Read the bolded in that quote:

Currently, about ninety percent of all criminal defendants plead guilty, and an unknown but substantial percentage of these defendants agree to testify against their co-defendants or co-conspirators in return for prosecutorial leniency. If the accomplice does not testify fully and truthfully, the prosecutor may refuse the leniency promised in the bargain. Courts sanction these "traditional" accomplice plea agreements and recognize them as a proper exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The bargain is only revoked based on grounds of truth, not because you testified in any particular manner. "Testifying against" in that sentence may mean that you are subpoenaed to testify in a particular case that is accusing someone of something. The agreement of the plea agreement is just to testify truthfully and nothing more.

The document you posted actually goes on at length to show what a plea deal really is. It is just encouragement to testify truthfully. That document says that prosecutors are officers of the court to encourage the truth, not to get people to testify in a certain way for convictions:

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions90, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

Courts have rejected plea bargains which are contingent on testimonies that lead to arrests:

United States v. Bareshs is the only recent case in which a federal court deemed a plea bargain agreement so conducive to perjury that it tainted the testimony beyond any possibility of redemption. In Baresh, the contingent plea agreement provided the witness with a pardon and permission to keep assets obtained with his narcotics profits if his testimony led to the arrest and indictment of two specified defendants. If the testimony did not lead to arrest and indictment, however, the witness probably would receive a fifteen-year sentence even if he told the full truth. The district court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that the witness's devastating and totally uncorroborated testimony against a defendant whom the government had originally doubted it could indict was so unreliable that its admission violated the defendant's due process rights.

Courts have rejected plea deals that are contingent on the government's satisfaction:

The defendant in Dailey argued that the contingent accomplice agreements violated his due process rights because the agreements required more than full and truthful testimony. Two of the three agreements contained a promise for full cooperation in return for a recommendation of a sentence not to exceed twenty years. Furthermore, depending upon the value of the witnesses' testimony, the prosecution could recommend a sentence of only ten years. The agreement with the third witness consisted of a four-month stay of sentencing, the possibility of a further stay, and the potential for government support on a motion for sentence reduction. These last two benefits depended upon the value or "benefit" of the information to the government as determined by the prosecutor. The district court noted that the agreements required more than full cooperation by the witnesses because otherwise the provisions concerning the ten-year sentences and the further stay of sentencing would be superfluous. Therefore, the district court concluded that the prosecutor provided the witnesses with incentives to lie by conditioning further rewards upon the government's satisfaction.

Contingent plea agreements which elicit a particular testimony usurp the jury's role of determining guilt:

Because prosecutors already have the ability to obtain truthful testimony through traditional plea bargains, contingent agreements can only serve the purpose of eliciting particular testimony which the prosecutor wants to introduce at trial. The obvious danger of this practice is that the prosecutor ignores the principle that all persons are assumed innocent until proven guilty and instead usurps the jury's role of determining guilt.

When the prosecution makes a plea bargain agreement, they are just guessing at the extent of the witnesses' knowledge:

Because the prosecution does not know the extent of a witness's knowledge, the prosecutor must make a subjective decision whether to confer or withhold the benefits of the bargain.

It is wrong think that a plea deal means that someone has "flipped" against someone. The plea agreement is merely meant as additional encouragement to tell the truth, which again you are already required to do.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 11:03:40 PM »
Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump.
Such plea deals are a common strategy used by prosecutors to get accomplices to testify against the real target (in this case, Donald Trump).


In a criminal case the prosecutor will often make a plea agree-
ment with an accomplice of the defendant. Under these tradition-
ally sanctioned agreements the accomplice receives a reduced
sentence in return for full and truthful testimony during the defend-
ant's trial. In recent years, some prosecutors have further condi-
tioned the accomplice's reduction in sentence upon the defendant's
indictment or conviction or the prosecutor's satisfaction with the ac-
complice's testimony.

I took a look at that document:

"A number of state courts have censured bargains conditioned upon a witness's agreement to testify in a particular manner and have overturned the resulting convictions on both due process and policy grounds."

A deal can't be made to testify in a particular manner. So such deals are made with nothing more than a hope or assumption that the truth is in your favor. These deals are not an agreement for the witness to "flip" or "turn against" anybody.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 10:29:00 PM »
Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump. Sources just say that she agreed to give "truthful testimony", which is already what you are required to give when subpoenaed by a court. Maybe you guys should just admit that you are being massively and continuously gaslighted on what is actually occurring here?

    Lawyer Sidney Powell, one of 19 people charged alongside former President Donald Trump for attempting to interfere in Georgia’s 2020 election result, has pleaded guilty in exchange for her truthful testimony at future trials.

CNN opines that Powell's "truthful testimony" will be bad news for Trump:

    Opinion: Sidney Powell’s plea is bad news for Trump and other co-defendants

Trump's lawyer, on the other hand, welcomes it:

    Steve Sadow, the lead attorney for Trump in the Georgia case, expressed confidence that Powell’s plea wouldn’t hurt his own client’s case.

    “Assuming truthful testimony in the Fulton County case, it will be favorable to my overall defense strategy,” he said.

When you are subpoenaed to testify in court you are required to testify truthfully, so you are just being gaslit here.

See the New Jersey code, for instance:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 06:45:07 PM »
It just says that she agreed to give "truthful testimony" in future hearings. Unless I am missing something, you are already required to give "truthful testimony" in court hearings.

As part of her sentence, she also agreed to provide a written letter of apology to the people of Georgia and give "truthful testimony" at any future hearings and trials relating to other defendants.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 03:12:18 PM »
She pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and is receiving no jailtime and almost no punishment except for probation and a relatively smallish fine. For comparison a traffic violation is a misdemeanor. She was initially charged with seven felonies. Looks more like she essentially won her case, tbh.

She was initially charged with felonies:

"Powell initially faced seven felony charges, including racketeering and conspiracy to commit election fraud"

Those charges were dropped and she was told that she could plead guilty to some misdemeanors and face almost no punishment.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 20, 2023, 12:43:06 AM »
Looks like you guys have been injecting and boosting yourselves with monkey DNA that was not disclosed to regulators.

EXCLUSIVE: Health Canada Confirms Undisclosed Presence of DNA Sequence in Pfizer Shot

    The health regulator says Pfizer did not disclose the presence of the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) DNA sequence in its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine at the time of filing.

    Health Canada has confirmed the presence of a Simian Virus 40 (SV40) DNA sequence in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, which the manufacturer had not previously disclosed. There is debate among scientists with regards to the significance of the finding, with some saying it has the potential to cause cancer, and others saying it poses little to no threat.


    Dr. Lindsay questioned why Pfizer failed to disclose the SV40 promoter to regulators like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada.

    "They hid them. So it's not just the fact that they're there, it's the fact that they were purposefully hidden from the regulators," she said.

Health Canada's response so far is essentially "this is fine"

    Health Canada maintains that based on its evaluation of the data and scientific information for the COVID-19 vaccine, "we have concluded that the risk/benefit profile continues to support the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine."

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 19, 2023, 02:40:37 PM »
AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.

It is the Democrats who took the vaccine without question.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 18, 2023, 04:00:00 PM »
There are a number of qualities involved, but it boils down to a matter of respect in conservative circles. It's not purely about R or D. Trump was a more respected Commander-in-Chief than Obama was, and is on a level higher than the military in general. This is why he can get away with insulting the military.

Some Republicans have a dubious reputation in conservative circles, and it is doubtful that someone like George W. Bush would get the same treatment as Trump if he had made the same comments today. Bush possibly could have made such comments mid-term of his presidency, but certainly not now after his warmongering reputation with Dick Chaney has been developed.

Some Democrats have a decent enough reputation to which they could possibly get away with insulting the military with conservative circles. RFK could possibly  get away with it. If former president and democrat John F. Kennedy had made those comments he could definitely get away with it and be cheered for those comments in the same manner as Trump was.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 18, 2023, 11:52:44 AM »
I don't see where the confusion is in that.

Obama < Military < Trump

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 10, 2023, 12:20:19 PM »
Well this is ironic

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: October 08, 2023, 04:02:11 PM »
I haven't seen any evidence that the Blanco kid got injected with that Chinese poison.

More likely than not some vaxx caused his reaction, but there's no evidence that it was "Sinopharm" AFAIK.

So you (Tom) are producing a debate about something which there is no evidence for.

That said, no kid should be vaxxed with anything. At all.

My argument is that he did not take that. Sinophram was a vaccine given in Argentina in late 2021 to children who had medical comorbidities. So no, it's not likely that he took that.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: October 08, 2023, 10:11:33 AM »
Why are you using the FDA for a kid who was in Argentina and Israel reapectively?

Also, Blanko wasn't promoting covid vaccines and may not have gotten one.

That article doesn't tell the full story. At the end of 2021 Argentina approved emergency use of a Covid vaccine called Sinopharm, to give to children with comorbidity health issues. It was not officially approved at that time or meant for all children.

Argentina approves emergency use of Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccines for children

This article clarifies that it was specifically for children who had other underlying conditions:

Oct 2021 -

"Argentina will start on October 12 vaccinating children aged between 3 and 11 who have other underlying conditions against COVID-19. Local health authorities have chosen the Sinopharm drug for the campaign."

The article describes various controversy from parent groups.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: October 08, 2023, 12:29:46 AM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: October 07, 2023, 11:42:25 PM »
What's even the argument here, that the vaccine killed one of these boys after two years and the other after three years? And the millions of us who are still doing fine, we're just waiting until the poison eventually kicks in?

Eight year old weren't being vaccinated in 2021. Vaccination of children is a more recent phenomenon.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: October 07, 2023, 04:04:30 PM »
Coincidence is the #1 killer of vaccine poster boys.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 03, 2023, 07:30:27 PM »
The banks always conduct appraisals of a loan applicant's assets in underwriting before they ever issue a loan. Try getting a home loan or mortgage sometime. The banks agreed with the valuation to issue the loan. Where is the fraud here?

In addition, none of the lenders are actually complaining about being defrauded.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 30, 2023, 10:47:33 PM »
There was not any notable television coverage by the big three, and the total corporate news media coverage including internet articles was cursory and misleading.

Yes, The Biden Impeachment Hearing Presented Evidence Of Corruption — Lots Of It

The corporate news media all but refused to cover the opening hearing of the House impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden on Thursday, and to the extent they did, it was only to repeat, at the behest of the White House, the exhausted mantra that there’s “no evidence” connecting Biden to his son Hunter’s international bribery scheme.

(The New York Times ran with a cursory and misleadingly headlined article, “First Impeachment Hearing Yields No New Information on Biden,” that boasted “even their [Republicans’] witnesses said the case for impeachment hadn’t been made.” Which, of course the case hasn’t been made yet. That’s why you launch an inquiry, of which Thursday was day one.)

But if the media had actually covered it, the American public might have heard more about the mounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen. All told, House Republicans presented more than two dozen pieces of evidence on Thursday linking Joe Biden to his son’s overseas business dealings.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 29, 2023, 03:47:02 AM »
Real Clear Investigations reporter and NY Post columnist Paul Sperry also notes that television networks are not covering it.

Comments in the post only note internet streams available.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 29, 2023, 03:39:00 AM »
Those are links to Youtube channels. That is not television. Yes, there were cameras there as there always are, but they didn't play this six hour video on television -

"CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet."

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 29, 2023, 03:02:54 AM »

That's odd, because I would have thought that "CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 TV networks" would in fact refer to CNN, MSNBC, and the Big 3 TV networks.

You're changing the subject. This tweet is claiming that CNN is blacking out coverage of the Biden impeachment inquiry, not simply that it's downplaying it or not treating it as momentous as Trump's impeachment. That's not a simple misunderstanding or a poor choice of words; that's a blatant lie.

The Tweet is claiming that the big television networks are not covering it. Your response is that you do not watch TV, but suspect that it is incorrect and immediately claimed in the same post that he is lying. How is it a blatant lie considering that you do not watch TV, exactly?

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 486  Next >