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

Of course they're guilty - prosecuting the innocent would be unfair.

You're right the country of Georgia actually doesn't go out of its way to punish those who want to go on trial. The actual numbers for the state of Georgia are probably closer to 90-95%

plea bargain | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

However, being rather corrupt they're afraid of actually publishing them.

People plea guilty all the time when they aren't - especially in the U.S. In the end, your endless wailing and bemoaning a statistic shows how weak your case is.

The Show Trials in the USSR - History Learning Site

"In his book ‘Darkness at Noon’ the author Arthur Koestler states his belief that prisoners actually signed confessions knowing that it would lead to their deaths but that death was better than the life they were leading while in a cell."

Kamenev said at his trial:

“I Kamenev, together with Zinoviev and Trotsky, organised and guided this conspiracy. My motives? I had become convinced that the party’s – Stalin’s policy – was successful and victorious. We, the opposition, had banked on a split in the party, but this hope proved groundless. We could no longer count on any serious domestic difficulties to allow us to overthrow Stalin’s leadership. We were actuated by boundless hatred and by lust of power.”

I'm sure this guy's confession in court will sound similar.

The man you "got" is getting a $5000 fine (Far less than lawyer fees) and 5 years probation with his record expunged after the 5-year period. I've seen traffic violations get more. Allow him to go to trial with this being his maximum punishment and all his lawyer and court fees paid for. See if he still confesses . . .

The man is getting less punishment than if he went to trial and won. Obvious prosecutorial abuse of power.

 

He already has confessed, at least of election interference. Any who want to know all the details, will have to wait until he testifies, which I've little doubt that he will. But, to your argument-- his deal is contingent on his cooperation and testimony. That deal was only offered, after DA Willis had heard his story. If he later contradicts whatever he'd already told them, which had gotten him his sweet deal, then it goes away.

 

Thank you for confirming that you're a leftist who enjoys and supports prosecutorial abuse of power and for confirming you didn't read and/or understand over half of what I wrote.

 

I understood it, fine. I wonder, though, if you do.

 

Nothing about your post demonstrates an understanding of my post.

In fact, you didn't even realize that

Bolsters my argument.

 

How so-- or is that a secret?

 

I'm not going to do all the work.

Can you even state what my argument is?

 

Oh Hell, let's make it better.

Can you even describe what Scott Hall did? Not what charges he confessed to. Describe what he actually did.

 

If you have an argument-- make it.
I'm not interested in playing the "guess my point" game.

 

See the following.

All were in response to Kaz . . .

You were wailing and moaning about it before Def even got involved.

Afterwards you were upset that Def thought that was your statistic.

Regardless, the statistic is wrong but not in a good way.

Still a waste of time which didn't even help your case - it hurt your case.

 

What was my 'case?'

 

It's written right there. Are you admitting you can't comprehend it? Are you admitting you don't know what Scott did to earn his misdemeanor convictions?

Are you just repeating leftist talking points?

 

Your case is that people who plead guilty are in fact guilty of the crimes they plead to.

 

How did the stat thing weaken/'hurt' my case?

 

I answered a question - now it's your turn. Why did you post three times about that stat to Kaz if a high plea rate didn't hurt your case?

 

@Bush Lawyer --
While it goes w/out saying, this is merely my opinion: I think @Bob Newhart 's got you, there. You started playing his game, of "tell me what I said;" and he answered you. Fair play dictates that you answer one, for him (IMHO).

Also, I agree, that it appeared to me-- though, granted, I was not paying it much attention-- you were, for some reason, dickering with Kazenatsu, over the exact percentage of cases that are resolved with plea bargains, as if this was a significantly telling data point.

EDIT: That is, it seems a pointless avenue of argument, unless, your only point had been to show how generally shoddy, was Kaz's research, by saying that he'd mistakenly taken data from a foreign country, thinking it was for the U.S. state, with the same name. But if that had been your only point-- it seemed to take you quite a bit of space, to make it.

 

My discussion with Kaz had everything to do with him offering up a stat relevant to the Country of Georgia and not the State of Georgia which was the State being widely discussed. (I did not give a flying flamingo about the stat per se.) It took several posts and some time before Kaz conceded he was wrong on the single issue (the huge error) I took him to task over..

 

See post # 118 ^^^^^.

 

So, you were arguing for just for the sake of arguing . . . a rather sad admission.

But the way, when you finally asked Kaz about it instead of just insulting him, he did admit to it with his next post.

 

Why innocent people are pleading guilty (guiltypleaproblem.org)



factually proven

If Scott has pleaded guilty to 5 years in prison and $500,000 fine, the truth of the confession would be more believable.

He plead guilty to a punishment of nothing as long as he plays ball.

Plea deals were a product of corruption which started after the Civil War and went nuts with Prohibition. They are corrupt, they always have been. Plea deals should not include any leniency on the sentence.

 

Really...see where I asked him for a Link, and then see when he finally made his very first reference to that.

I made the point to demonstrate to Kaz that he was using a totally irrelevant number from an entirely different part of the Planet. A rather relevant point to what he was asserting.

Back in yer box.

 

See 121.

If the percentage didn't matter, then there would be no reason to ask for a link. Unless you were asking for a link to argue for argument's sakes.

 

I had a look at the Innocence Project. I chose a random name......Marcellius Bradford. I looked into that case. Not only was there a recanted confession, they was corrupt evidence of that 'confession' given by Cops and worse, a corrupt expert gave evidence of a positive DNA or similar test. You can't blame the Law when Copper's lie and worse, outrageously, 'experts' also lie and fabricate evidence. That is appalling.

 

Why not ask for a Link. It was an unusual stat...a strange, weird figure....56.9%. It stood out demanding query like the proverbial anatomical biological parts of a dog's body. After I asked for a link, I found it myself, and immediately posted the Link to the falsehood/error. Ultimately, Kaz conceded his error. End of story.

I never take anyone's word in situations like that. I will always look, fact check, and I will post the outcome of that fact check.

For example...I watched all of that video you posted of the Judge talking about pleas. At the 1.16 mark, he boldly says, without evidence, that people 'who are actually factually innocent' have been convicted. As it turned out, he largely was referring to defended cases where a guilty verdict was arrived at (and later found to be wrong and then, it was only after I chased down the Innocence Project that I discovered there was a claim that around 10% of people who entered a plea of guilty were later found to be innocent. I refer you to the random name above, Marcellius Bradford, and my comments about that.

 

While the graph shown in your video, of the drop in cases going to trial, since the toughening of sentencing in the 1980s and '90s, was striking-- it does not apply to this case. The crimes which had received stiffer penalties, were overwhelmingly violent crimes: assault & battery; manslaughter; rape; murder. Financial crimes, for instance, were not upped to 20 year minimums. Nor were election interference charges, made capital offenses.

Secondly, while obviously no human enterprise is going to be flawless, & The Innocence Project has brought to light many individual cases in which justice was ill-served, and even at times wantonly lacking, there is no evidence that truly innocent people get convicted of criminal charges, in an elevated percentage of cases. The last I had heard, those in the know about such things, were estimating that around 3% of felony convictions, were of innocent people-- which, don't get me wrong, I certainly don't feel should be considered a "good" record, or even a tolerable level. But my point is that it seems a poor bargain, for an innocent person to take 5 years in prison, and a lifetime felony record, to avoid the possibility of a 20 year sentence, if there is a 97%, or 95%, or even 93% chance, they would get no prison time at all, if they went to trial. The judge in your video even makes the distinction that while most of the innocent people who plead guilty might not have been likely to've been convicted at trial, many believe otherwise. So he is talking about people who are less savvy to the system than, IMO, would be Bail Bondsman Scott Hall.

Yes, he got a great deal; but it was based on what he had told prosecutors, about his role. Had he lied about this, and been willing to testify against others, with those lies, it would, first of all, be difficult to see him as a victim, here. Secondly, though, this seems a much less likely scenario-- farfetched, would even be a fitting description-- than that the reason he was given his deal, was because he does, in fact, have knowledge of this crime, from having partaken in it.


I prefer to keep the discussion relatively focused on this overall RICO case, rather than to go off into completely unrelated topics, but I will just add that your video did not support your contentions at all, about plea deals having always been corrupt (or any of your assertions about the escalation in their use coming in the post Civil War era, and going "nuts" in the early 20th century, concurrent with Prohibition). I'm not saying that I know otherwise; only that:
1) you offered no supporting evidence for your claims;
2) your video presenter focused on only about the last 40 years;
3) it seems doubtful that, even if it may be an interesting topic, it has any relevance to this thread.