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.
In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.
1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one
That's... not how court cases work. Judges don't judge defendants before the case is over.Actually, he already did. It's called a summary judgement.
If he did make such comments, it will only be used as fodder for an appeal. The judge in that case has already been slapped by an appeals court regarding his actions in this case: New York appeals court judge lifts gag order in Trump civil fraud caseOh, I'm sure that Trump will appeal. Probably all the way to the Supreme Court (if they're willing to hear it). Personally, I think that this civil fraud trial is the least of his worries compared to the criminal charges that he's looking at.
The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -I'll leave Cohen's star witness status to be decided by a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.
Essentially "Trump didn't ask anyone to inflate financial statements directly, but he implied it by speaking like a mob boss!"Do you sincerely and honestly believe that Cohen's testimony is the prosecution's only, or even strongest, evidence against Trump?
Do you sincerely and honestly believe that this type of evidence is going to go anywhere?
I can only roll my eyes when you guys continually fall for this media hype.
There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated. Since then every other week it has been some other claim and some other alleged crime, which always comes with the coincidental far-left DA or far-left figure pushing for it, with recurring predictions from the left that a mountain of evidence has been collected against Trump and he is for sure going to jail this time.
Engoron rejected the motion absolutely, contradicting the Trump team’s claim that Cohen was the key witness. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” he remarked.
You are trying to tell us what other people are thinking, who you do not know.No. I'm asking you what you think, given what we all (or at least most of us) know about how plea deals generally work.
As it is, she has only agreed to testify truthfully. Everything else is conjecture.Tom, you keep focusing on the "what" of the deal (the truthful testimony). Aren't you the least bit interested in the "why" of the deal? As in, if she agreed that there was enough evidence to convict her for the original charges, then why would the prosecutors give here such a sweetheart deal instead of going to trial and conviction?
Her attacks on the prosecutor are just for keeping up appearances for her adoring fans and have no effect on court proceedings. Remember that she agreed in her plea that the evidence was strong enough to convict her had she gone to trial.Tom, are you familiar with subtext? Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump. However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.
One can also reasonably infer from her continuous attacks on the prosecutor that she did not flip.
If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify, which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.Tom, are you familiar with subtext? Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump. However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.
According to the left the walls have been closing in on Trump for 9 years now, for a wide range of crimes which are totally provable in court but somehow falls apart. Surely, you have him now.What exactly has fallen apart? He already lost one E. Jean Carrol case and is looking at another one in a few months. He has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial in New York, so that's not a good sign. Plus there are 91 well detailed felony charges that have been filed. Oh, and a number of co-defendants are taking sweet plea deals that require them to provide "truthful testimony" in future trials against Trump. So yes, I think that it's pretty safe to say that the walls are closing in.
Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully.There is no "intending" about it. By agreeing to the plea agreement. she is obligated to testify truthfully and the prosecutors already have a pretty good idea of how damaging to Trump that testimony is going to be, otherwise they wouldn't have offered the deal in the first place.
In American parlance, a defendant who agrees to cooperate with prosecutors and give information against co-conspirators (often those with greater culpability) is also said to flip.
Prosecutors don't directly represent the victim. They represent society and must treat cases impartially in the interest of justice, as stated in the above quotes.Exactly. In this case, justice would be best served by putting Trump in jail for being a threat to society.
As they are defendants...Umm... No. Once they plead guilty, their trials are over and they are no longer defendants. They become convicted criminals who are being called as witnesses for the prosecution.
She already plead guilty. How is she going to incriminate herself further by testifying against Trump?Yes there is a deal. How are you this stupid?Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.
She entered into a contract. If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.
Its really not complicated. I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.
Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.She already plead guilty, so her trial is over and double jeopardy would apply. It's her testimony about her other co-defendants that they are interested in, so the self-incrimination part of the 5th doesn't really apply.
Again, 5th Amendment. Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating. So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.The 5th Amendment also shields against double jeopardy. Given that she plead guilty to lesser charges, she can't be charged again, unless her testimony might potentially include other crimes not already covered.
This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.
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.
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).
ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY UNDER CONTINGENT PLEA
AGREEMENTS
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.
