Trump co-defendant takes plea deal, agrees to testify in Georgia election case

But that's not what my argument is. I am saying there are some other underlying reasons to suspect or be skeptical that there might be some "funny business".
Even though putting pressure on a defendant through a plea bargain is not unusual--and in fact is pretty normal--that could possibly be used in this case to do something unethical.
In fact, using plea bargains to put pressure on a defendants raises some potentially problematic issues in all sorts of ways. It's not difficult to misuse it.

 

LOL: it clearly does abrade your nose, when you continue to throw in gratuitous cheap shots, like you do, to finish this post:

It is hard for me to take offense, however, at such a ludicrous thing, as being told about the conventions of good writing, by you! Have you seen your posts? I suggest, old boy, you stop while you are behind. But if want to have your arguments reduced to particulate rubble, in front of all, then certainly, enjoin me in a debate on the specifics of good writing.

 

Fixed for you.

No need for thanks.

 

OK-- so what, in your opinion, are those reasons?

That something is theoretically "possible," is not an "underlying reason to suspect or be skeptical," of what would be Willis's gross abuse of office, and a serious crime. What else have you got, besides that it is not impossible?

Again, in this particular case, your reasoning for being suspicious of "funny business," is that "it's not difficult to misuse," plea bargains, "to put pressure on defendants." Even were that true-- which is a separate question-- how would that single out, this instance?

As I had surmised and stated, from the very first, this argument of yours is predicated on your known distrust of the legal system. Your "underlying reasons," would apply to every plea bargain, in every case, in every court in the land. That, then, is not a reasonable basis, for suspicion.

Your attitude mirrors that of Rep. James Comer, and many on the MAGA Right, when they first claim there is irrefutable proof against President Buden, then call for an investigation, to corroborate their "proof"-- which, in truth, had been nothing of the sort; merely some fact which had allowed them to speculate about fantastic possibilities.

 

Well, I haven't really seen any proof posted in this thread that he should be found guilty, and what the exact reasons are that he should cooperate for prosecutors to be able to go after the others.

 

One of the questions a Judge asks a Defendant pleading guilty is whether they have been coerced in any way to make the plea. If the answer is, "Yes, I have been pressured," (or whatever) the plea will be rejected.

Now, I get that is the nice way of putting it in theory. I also get the practicalities. A Prosecutor might go to an accused's Lawyer and offer to drop a charge of whatever, if the accused is willing to plead guilty to whatever. It can go on from there, sometimes even rarely including the Judge who is asked in advance what the sentence might be if a plea to whatever was made.

But, in all my years of practicing in the criminal jurisdiction, never, ever, did any of my clients plead guilty to an offence they were not dead set right for. In fact, on most occasions, they were right for the major charge first made, and it often was a bluff, or a negotiation of bullshit grandstanding or of convenience that we could get a Prosecutor to consider a reduced charge and sentence. A Prosecutor will be attracted to a bird in the hand, if there any doubt can be planted in their mind that they will not succeed on the major charge.

And, yes. Plea deals will often involve the Prosecutor making it a condition that if the accused wants a reduced accusation and likely consequence, that they give honest evidence against any co-accused.

Of course, when they give that evidence, the Lawyers for the co-accused have field day playing up the deal....'You lied to save your own worthless criminal hide at the expense of your partner in crime,' etc etc.

 

The only reason I might conceivably give you thanks, would be for your proving of my argument; nonetheless, I cannot rejoice in the manifest demonstration of such a waste, as of any human being who refuses to learn from his mistakes. So this will be the last time, I show you how wrong you are. When you come back for more, as you doubtless shall, I will not reinforce your self-destructive pattern.

Below, is your "corrected" version of my post. I will highlight in red, any additions or positive changes you've made, as in substituting a different word, for the one I had used. Since you offer no guide to indicate your changes, those cases in which you merely remove any of my content (as, a comma), I will mark with asterisks.


LOL: it clearly does abrade your nose, when you continue to throw in gratuitous cheap shots, like you did, to finish this post:

It is hard for me to take offense* at such a ludicrous thing* as being told about the conventions of good writing* by you! Have you seen your posts? I suggest, Old Boy, you stop while you are behind* but, if you want to have your arguments reduced to particularised rubble* in front of all, by all means join me in a debate on the specifics of good writing.
<End B.L.'s rewrite>


My first impression, is how sad it is that you take what you have done here, as something of which, you should be proud. Nevertheless, I will begin reviewing it, with your two, word changes. The very first thing you'd seen as my mistake, had been my use of the word "do," in my first sentence, which you'd "corrected," to be "did." Here is my original version:

LOL: it clearly does abrade your nose, when you continue to throw in gratuitous cheap shots, like you do, to finish this post:


The reason that I had used "do," and not "did," is because the other two verbs I'd used, prior to that, in the same sentence-- "does" and "continue"-- had, like "do," been in the present tense. You had left these, unchanged. It is extremely poor form, however, to mix different tenses, without a very clear reason for it. That is, there is absolutely no justification for your switching to the past tense, at the end of my sentence. Had you wished to cast the entire sentence in that tense, you would have needed change my verb, "does," also to "did." Had you not recognized that "does," and "do," were forms of the same verb?

correct change: LOL: it clearly did abrade your nose, when you continued to throw in gratuitous cheap shots, like you did, to finish this post:

However, that does not read as well, as my original:
LOL: it clearly does abrade your nose, when you continue to throw in gratuitous cheap shots, like you do, to finish this post:

Making the word "continue," something that implies something not from the past, but which is still going on, is the rationale behind my using the present tense-- aside from the fact that the present tense is generally more engaging, than the past, and that using "continued," sounds rather awkward. Regardless of one's stylistic opinions, though, there is no disputing that the way you had "fixed," this first sentence of mine, was just plain wrong.

B.L.'s grammatically incorrect version:
LOL: it clearly does abrade your nose, when you continue to throw in gratuitous cheap shots, like you did, to finish this post:


Wow, Bush Lawyer, you're off to a more spectacular start, even than I had anticipated! Do I need explain to you, BTW, the reason why my change in verb tense was both necessary, and not confusing, in that last sentence?


Your second alteration of a word of mine, had been your change of my word "particulate," to "particularized." At first, I had thought that this was perhaps some Australian usage of a term. Whether or not this is correct usage in that country, is not something I can know; what I can say for certain, though, is that on this site, on which American English predominates, your change, once again, is wrong. It is one thing, to use a foreign term for something: such as to call a bathroom/restroom, the "loo." There is not likely to be much misunderstanding, as Americans do not have a different use, for that same word. However, this does not hold true for your word, to replace "particulate." It should first be noted, that there is nothing wrong with my saying "particulate rubble;" that means rubble that has been crumbled down into small pieces. I can only surmise that you are not familiar with the word:

<Snip>
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages ·

par·tic·u·late
adjective
relating to or in the form of minute separate particles.

"particulate pollution"

noun
matter in particulate form.
"sooty particulates from diesel exhausts"
<End>


But that is not what your substituted word means, at least not according to the Oxford dictionary:

<Snip>
particularised
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
par·tic·u·lar·ize
verbFORMAL
past tense: particularised; past participle: particularised
mention or describe particularly; treat individually or in detail.

"he was unable to particularize what amounts he had paid and when"
Similar:
specify
detail
itemize
list
<End>


So, you are zero for two, at this point. Who ever could have guessed that-- besides anyone who has read your posts?

Since this is even becoming boring to me, at this point, I will save discussion of comma use, and the like (your asterisked changes) for a separate post.

 

I, am, looking, forward, to, that.

And, this, time, do, not, mark, your, own, homework.

 

Flipping is PART of the plea deal.

 

This thread's intention, is not to post proof that Scott Hall "should be found guilty." That is what a trial, generally, would be for. In this case, however, since he pled guilty, and was sentenced-- that would actually be considered, by any legal standard, as proof of his guilt, of at least "conspiracy to commit intentional interference with performance of election duties," which was the accepted, reduced charge. It is you who, on the contrary, should offer some evidence, that he is not, indeed guilty of that, for which he has acknowledged guilt.

As to your second point: the reason that he should cooperate, is that this is part of his plea bargained agreement. "Cooperating" does not imply lying, to help the prosecution (though that seems to be how you interpret it). As long as he is truthful the court cannot rescind his deal. So, once again, it is you who has failed to show any cause to think, that Hall would feel forced to lie, about anything.

 

This is a CRIME committed by Politicians and their ENABLERS.

Plea deals are ALWAYS a COMPROMISE as far as justice is concerned.

More than happy to see your Traitor-in-Chief SERVING hard time for his CRIMES against We the People.

 

Semantic quibbling noted.

His plea deal will be REVOKED if he does NOT testify to the CRIME(S) that he entered a GUILTY plea on when making the deal.

That ADMISSION of GUILT during the TRIAL by ONE of the Co-Conspirators means that the Jury will be AWARE that at least one if the criminals has a conscience about the crime(s) he committed AGAINST We the People.

 

Oh, FFS...! Stop quibbling over word games. He’s ‘flipped’ from not guilty to guilty. He’s ‘flipped’ from remaining silent to agreeing to cooperate completely.

Give it up mate…

 

There was no trial.

No it wouldn't.

All it is is a pretty strong indicator that there was a significantly high chance, he expected, he might have been convicted and sentenced to much more prison time if it had gone to trial.

You are aware that pleading guilty does NOT necessarily mean that person is guilty? By no means does it imply that.
A lot of people in society very ignorantly and naively believe that. I hope you are not one of those persons.

Again, I am not arguing he is not guilty, but it is presumptuous to rely on an argument in this thread presuming he is.

 

Come on. You are charged with stealing a biscuit (cookie, for, @DEFinning,,,,,,)

Did you or did you not? It is a very simple question. The accused knows if he had his hand in the cookie jar, ja?

 

As I said: admitting guilt, in a plea bargain, makes you guilty in the eyes of the law. To deny this, is to reject truth. Hall was still convicted by a court, though of far lesser offenses, than those for which he was originally indicted.

As I also have said, I realize that people do cop to pleas, when they are not guilty. I believe this may occur moreso with minor offenses, because it is not worth the hassle of fighting them. That said, Mr. Hall did get a very good deal. In fact, I think I read his lawyer saying that, after his probation, this would be expunged from his record.

Yet, part of Hall's plea deal, requires that he cooperate with the prosecutor, which means he must honestly answer all the prosecutor's questions. Obviously, some of this had already occurred, prior to DA Willis offering the deal. This, then, is not a hypothetical situation.

The only way Hall could not be guilty of any election crimes, would be if he, for some reason, admitted to the prosecutor he was guilty of things, which he had not done. Hard to imagine why one would do this. Add to that, the video evidence against him, and it is reasonable to believe what has been alleged, of his involvement with this scheme. If, somehow or other-- and I do not see how this is even possible, considering the evidence against him, which I'm sure includes the computer record of their illegally accessing this voting data-- Hall is innocent of election interference, that would make him, instead, guilty of perjury.

 

incarcerations is based on sentencing laws and criminal procedures. However, there is a greater chance to avoid jail time if you admit culpability.

so with legal game theory, you have two choices: cooperate or not cooperate. This is the vertical access. The horizontal access is pleading guilty or not guilty. So if you cooperate and plead guilty to charges, even reduced charges in a plea deal, then the chances are little to no jail time depending on what the defendant is charged with. The opposite is not cooperating and pleading not guilty will generally get you longer sentencing, assuming the defendant is found guilty in a criminal trial.

 

WHAT WAS STOLEN??????? Yes if a government official tells me they have authority to let me look at the voting machines and copy some of the ballots for an investigation into some fraud they believe happened YES I would have the legal right to assume it was a legal act. If someone violated a law it was the election official. YES if the guy on loading dock says he has the authority to give me something, left behind boxes or damage and already compensated merchandise or whatever, and I take then I have not committed a crime, he has if it was stolen or did not have the authority.

 

And what would this totally minor figure know about anything?

 

I don't know that your characterization of him as "minor," is accurate. According to Willis's indictment, I would call him mid-level. He certainly would know a good bit, about the branch of the election-overturning plan, involving casting doubt on the accuracy of Dominion voting machines.

 

Of course, you always have the legal right to ASSUME something is legal, even if it isn't. But your assumption, doesn't make an illegal act, no longer a criminal offense. Your point is disingenuous: Hall knew-- as do we all-- that voting machine data, and voter ballots, are private, protected information, and that only authorized workers are allowed access. Hall had not simply been walking by, and been called in, to grab himself a scan of the results. He made contact, in an effort to get these. It would be like your lobbying your doctor, to see private medical records. Even if he was unscrupled enough, to give you access, you would still be violating the law, to review and take notes from them.

 

It would stand up in court, if the government tells you it is OK to do something it cannot then come back and say nope it wasn't you are under arrest. They only copied SOME of the ballots they did not take them. They did not tried to change a single ballot or the tabulation. They did not steal a voting machine. They were GIVEN a copy of the software by the election supervisor and her urging they take it. If the company that sold them the machine has some proprietary claim it's for them against her. If it was against some election law to give a copy of that to someone else it is the state against her. You do know the voter data after an election is for the public record, people get access to it regularly doing various new media reports, polling company research, college and university research, the political parties themselves. The ballots don't have a name on them to associate them with anyone else. Even the voting role data, who voted in the primary or general, is public information. Party registration is public information. Where you live as a registered voter is public information.

As this guys lawyer stated and I had already mentioned, $5000 to end this persecution and not have to pay a lawyer to defend you in court...............

 

It's not mine it's how the media is reporting it, he's a bail bonds man who was acting as a go between.

"Hall is considered a minor player in that alleged conspiracy. Georgia’s indictment explains Hall had “been looking into the election on behalf of the President at the request of David Bossie”, a conservative activist and Trump ally."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023...dicted-in-georgia-election-case-pleads-guilty

 

Hall was quoted in one of the earlier posted links, as having bragged that they'd scanned every ballot. His word is not proof, of course, but the fact that he took the plea deal-- as I have already explained in the preceding posts-- is also indicative of his guilt.

 

Well then you are oddly, and inconsistently, choosing which statements of the press you stand behind, and from which ones you step away, on your own. Does the press share your view, that-- because he's a "minor" player-- he wouldn't know about anything? Also, there is that hour long phone call he'd had with Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark (who was also among the indicted).

<Google Snip>
Prosecutors say that on Jan. 2, 2021, he had a 63-minute phone call with Clark, whom prosecutors accused of plotting to delegitimize the vote in Georgia and other states and galvanize slates of contingent pro-Trump electors. Hall was sentenced to five years' probation with a $5,000 fine.2 days ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com › ...
First Trump co-defendant pleads guilty in Georgia election case - Washington Post
<End>