Lawyer Kenneth Chesebro pleads guilty over efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss in Georgia

Well whoever he was he must have been a genius. Cause I just wrote that lol

 

I mean it should be common sense. We ALL know RICO was intended for mafia members and gangs and true high grade criminal enterprises. Many of these crimes listed are just thrown in to make sure they can get convictions on those people, such as the accessing a computer crime. But this was NEVER intended to prosecute a political opponent who is just engaging in political activity. That’s why the vast majority of these (maybe only one of them) really do not apply.

 

It appears that felonies may in fact be automatically expunged after four years in GA.

In this case, maybe the fact that Chesebro will still be on probation after 4 years leads to it taking five years to autoseal the record, or perhaps it is four years after the 5 years of probation are up, making it 9 years from this month.

Given that Chesebro is 62, this means that likely the earliest this will be cleared from his record is like just a minute away in old man time.

Trivial!

LOL!!

And in the circles he apparently likes to live in, who knows, this might just enhance his cred, a true OG.

 

Clearly sarcasm, wannit?

 

This post shows exactly why you don't get a like. You don't know why or what you post.

 

When someone uses the “We all know” argument, it actually means “I don’t have anything to back up my argument so I’ll just go the populist route”.

No, we don’t “all know”. Quite the opposite. And RICO can be used in any instance that fits: the statute doesn’t say “Only applies to the Mafia”. Furthermore , it is a “high grade” crime to feloniously attempt to reverse the results of a General Election. There aren’t too many higher.

 

If that were true you wouldn’t have had to eat your words in the last few posts would you?

How bout you throw that burn a like

 

Only in Trumo world is subversion if thr Constitution a small thing.
In seems it's more critical to support Trump than the laws.

 

Did I say the statute says that? No I said it was INTENDED for that purpose. And if you’d like me to source that lll be happy to give you a plethora of sources. How many would you like?

 

Nailed it!

Fortunately, some true high grade criminal enterprises are run by true low intelligence criminals...

 

But of course you did

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...loss-in-georgia.614291/page-7#post-1074483968

 

Sorry, again you don't understand how these things happen - Cheesdude passed on the first offer because he thought there might be some
way he could weasel out of the trial, but things got real when the DA started seating jurors. It's the time when MOST deals ARE accepted - because it suddenly gets very real for the defendants.

 

This seems like it is exactly how racketeering cases are supposed to go. The low people take plea deals to testify against the kingpins.

 

If his case was so strong then why did he accept a plea deal? Even if this guy stays out of jail he’s probably going to be disbarred. That’s the end of his livelihood. Seems like a lot to give up to avoid a trial he couldn’t lose.

 

Actually, the true end of his livlihood will be the day he takes the stand against another MAGA defendant... If he could have avoided that, his MAGA credentials were set for life (prison time a bonus)

 

Let's keep in mind accepting a plea deal does not mean someone is guilty. Hopefully we can agree on that.

What it does mean (assuming that person is not guilty) is that person had something to fear if they did not plead guilty. That they believed a significant chance existed that they could be found guilty at trial and could be sentenced to a lot more prison time.

Sometimes people will still plead guilty even when the chance of being found guilty at trial is below 50%. (That isn't necessarily illogical)

The reasons there may be a likelihood they could be convicted at trial is either because the case against them is fairly strong, or, more likely in this case, it's an issue of interpretation. That is, the issue is not about the facts or evidence but the characterization of those facts, what a group of jurors may see those facts as representing, and how jurors may decide to understand a law. The chance of political bias from a group of jurors from a particular area probably comes into play too.

Despite what many people assume, juror decisions are not always going to be the correct and logical one. And it's common for there to be situations where it is not clear whether a particular action really falls under the law, or should fall under that law.

 

Lol what EXACTLY did he do illegally to attempt to subvert the constitution?

And give the Georgia indictment asserts he wanted to do so “by any means necessary”, why didn’t he take every step he could take to do so?

 

Wtf are you talking about?

His first offer was on the table until THE DAY OF TRIAL. The prosecution then took the offer back and offered him the new plea ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

it’s like y’all live in a fairy tale world lol

 

If her case was strong he would have taken the original plea deal for racketeering. Right? Or she would have not offered him a sweet deal on the day of trial, taken him to trial got the racketeering CONVICTION and then she could say trump was engaged in racketeering. But she can’t say that now because she didn’t get the racketeering charge. She got felony to file false documents which doesn’t fall under racketeering.

 

Oh look. Someone who’s not a complete partisan retard lol

 

It means they are now legally guilty of the counts they pleaded to.

Do innocent people accept plea deals?? I'm sure it happens...

Not the case(s) here however...

 

Sure. Source all you want. Please include sources that say non mafia corrupt organizations shouldn’t be prosecuted under RICO.

 

Attempted bank robbery is still a crime. Trump attempted to get fake electors recognized by Pence. Trump attempted to appoint a bunch of crazy lawyers
to help overturn the election through use non-Constitutional practices, but he was faced with mass resignations from the DOJ and his Cabinet which forced
him to back off. Trump floated military interference and declaring martial law until protest inside his military forced him to reconsider. This was confirmed by Republicans working in his WH - not Democrats. Everyone testifying against Trump is either a Republican or someone who worked for Trump.

 

I've never heard that the idea went to anybody in the military... All I read was that DFG Flynn floated it (naturally), Trump loved it (more naturally), but it never left the meeting room(s)

Anyway, I wouldn't focus on that too much. Legally, if nothing actually happened, it's a non-issue....

Plenty of other meat on this rotting corpse..

 

That’s not what I said. What I said is that the law was created and intended for those people. Not politicians engaging in politics.