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

In your scenario above YOU are GUILTY of POSSESSION of stolen property from the loading dock.

 

The traffic light turned orange and as I was making my turn to leave the intersection I was T-boned by someone who suddenly accelerated from a standstill to get through the then red light. I had seen him just sitting there, probably on his phone. Cop believed that I turned in front of him BEFORE the light changed.

Since I had no way to prove it and it was his word against mine my lawyer entered a plea deal for parking on the median where my car ended up, it was just $40 and no points. Had I gone to court or allowed the charges to stand my insurance would have increased and I would have had the first points on my license in over two decades of safe driving.

I entered a guilty plea to something that I didn't do BECAUSE the ALTERNATIVE was to allow someone else to cause me unjustifiable financial harm for years to come.

Was that a CORRUPTION of justice or just a means by which justice is SERVED in a manner fitting the individual circumstances? Without witnesses it was his word vs mine and I have no doubt he was convinced he had the "right of way". I don't know why the cop decided I was in the wrong because I wasn't there when he spoke to the other driver. He could have told him the light was green and I couldn't prove otherwise.

Sometimes you just do what is necessary because there was no other way to resolve a case WITHOUT it costing a lot of money.

In the case of Hall there is hard EVIDENCE of his CRIMES. He had two options, try and fight the evidence and pray for a hung jury or enter a PLEA DEAL for his TESTIMONY against his co-defendants. He got a sweetheart deal because he was the FIRST to come forward. He entered a GUILTY plea for FIVE YEARS, his deal enables him to serve it ON PROBATION as long as he COMPLIES with the rest of the requirements.

If YOU were in his position and YOU were OFFERED that deal what would YOU do?

Real easy to be a keyboard warrior, not so easy when facing 5 years in a stinking GA penitentiary.

 

Only if I KNEW it was stolen and this wasn't a loading dock it was an election supervisor so deal with the realty not your strained attempts to compare it to something not relatated. It was a "reasonable assumption" what a reasonable person would believe. Did this election official call them up and tell them that it was illegal but I'll let you copy some ballots and the software? Nope. She called them and told them she believed there was a problem with the machines as in his legally enaged contest. Then she INVITED them to come and inspect the machine. They did not seek her out or ask her to commit an illegal act. If there was some act that was against a law or rule it is on the election official.

 

Oh I know the hyped up language the DA used. What MAJOR role did he play in the Trump campaign?

 

Your premise, that if a person is acting in good faith, they cannot break the law, is utterly fallacious. If you have stolen property, that is a crime-- whether or not you realized that it was stolen. If a friend lets you borrow his car, which he had stolen, without your knowing, you may just as likely be stopped and arrested, as if you'd stolen the car, yourself. Once the truth came out, your charges would likely be reduced from theft, but you could and quite possibly would still be charged, with "receiving stolen property," or some such. I recommend you do a little research, in this area, if you find yourself being given expensive things, or being sold things at very steep discounts, from non traditional type retail outlets.

But, to refocus on Hall-- you have no basis for your telling desire, of wanting to postulate his ignorance to the fact that he was violating any law. What on Earth, would make you believe that this is the case? Basic common sense makes it clear to most of us, that asking to access voting machine files, is not an above-board request.

 

STRAW MAN. The "campaign," ended with the election. One needn't have had any connection with Trump's official campaign, to have played a part in the later machinations of Trump and his allies, after the election, aimed at perpetrating the fraud, that Trump had actually won. I think (or at least hope) you understand this, already.

 

Rec'd another sign from either the conceptual underpinning of our reality, or the influential, ideological entity, with whom I somehow share some personal connection. I couldn't sleep this morning, so rose early. While eating breakfast, I clicked on to "Morning Joe," and on the screen, that very moment, was a book by a Columbia Law professor, who was one of the segment's guests, for a discussion of Trump's ongoing NY business trial. The book's title read, Corporate Crime & Punishment: The Crisis of Underenforcement; and just above the title, was the author's (this guest's) name: John C. Coffee, Jr.

 

Hall is a bail bondsman so he CANNOT claim to be IGNORANT of the Law of the Land.

Furthermore IGNORANCE of the law does NOT exonerate anyone of their CRIMES.

Try telling a judge that you did NOT know that you were breaking the law and see what happens.

Only fools believe that IGNORANCE of the law ENABLES them to commit crimes. Your Inmate P01355809 is finding that out the HARD WAY. Looks like ALL of his NY assets are going to be SEIZED and used to pay back those he INTENTIONALLY deceived in order to line his own pockets. Hopefully those INDIVIDUALS who he BANKRUPTED because he NEVER paid them will receive FULL reimbursements. Now that would be JUSTICE.

 

I do believe that humans can "sense" some things we can't explain, and that although we can't yet define it and study it, there is some type of connection on another level. Maybe someday we'll be able to quantify it and possibly use it more efficiently.
I also believe that many Trump supporters are in tune with that, and down deep know that Trump is a seriously flawed human, but they don't want to believe it and spend a lot of time and energy to rationalize that which they down deep know to be faults and untruths.
Anyway, that's my two cents on the subject.
Now for a fresh cup of covfefe!

 

He's not an election official or a lawyer.

It's the government official in charge of that law advising you.

I most certainly would.

When it's the government official in charge jf that law.

What bank went bankrupt? Who claims they were defrauded here and prove it with a link to it.

 

His campaign ORGANIZATION didn't end........geez are you just being argumentative. Obviously you can't cite any major role he played in it.

 

False. If I see a guitar listed on the local Facebook page and I go and buy it from the person and the next day the police knock on my door and say it was stolen and they are there to recover it I am NOT charged with a crime. Get your facts about the law.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

 

ROFL!

You just admitted to being in possession of stolen goods. Assuming you can establish that you had no reason to believe that it was stolen you probably won't be charged but you won't get your money back. However if the person who sold it to you told the cops you paid them to steal it for you then the cops will be there to arrest you and then search the premises.

From the cops POV it doesn't matter which of you is telling the truth or lying because each of you has landed the other in legal trouble. The other person now makes a deal with the prosecutor to testify that you paid them to steal it together with the evidence of the financial transaction and your possession of the stolen item to back up his story you are in a predicament.

Possession of stolen goods is a crime.

 

I would have had no reason to believe and I would not be charged with possession give it up.

 

RIFLMAO....... oh he comes the "nah nah nah nah nah" dodge.

 

I take it, you realize that there is a difference between believing what one wants to believe, despite hard evidence to the contrary, versus being open to possibilities which go beyond common understanding or (assumed) belief. I do take the point, that not every coincidence must have an explanation other than random chance. So the only overlap I see between the "coffee" theme, and what you say about Trump supporters, is that a person can certainly convince oneself that things, which are not great improbabilities, must nonetheless have significance. I understand this difference, however, between my own interpreting of things, to personally invest them with some symbolic meaning, versus noting something that seems a highly unlikely coincidence, and wondering if it could be some sort of sign of intelligent communication. The Seti Project does this all the time. To date, they have been intrigued by only one "Ah-ha!" signal, which has never repeated, so remains an unexplained phenomenon.

For an example of the former scenario-- of a person giving their own meaning, to a less than remarkable coincidence-- I will point out the possibility of one seeing the timing of Kevin McCarthy's ouster, as being symbolic: he was tossed out, 9 months, to the day, from when he was elected. One might read into this, the symbolism of connecting this most recent, significant step in the ruin of the GOP, with the first issue which began the ball of their demise, in the eyes of voters, rolling in earnest: abortion rights.

 

POSSESSION of stolen goods is STILL a CRIME.

What you BELIEVE has no bearing on the Law of the Land.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAA!

IRONIC given that is EXACTLY what YOU just posted when FACED with the FACTS about your Biggliest Loser's CHEATING of who knows how many people.

 

Wow. You have explained that to Bluesy, how many times? I, too, have pointed this out to him, at least once or twice. Since my recent post had spoken about "symbolism," it is very appropriate to reflect, for a moment, on how lucid a look, this gives the rest of us, on the MAGA mentality: if you BELIEVE something is the right thing, the just thing, to do-- then you can do no wrong, in pursuing that end. As long as you BELIEVE in your cause, you avoid all culpability.

 

NO. Thats not how that works.

My word man!!!!

“Sorry officer, I didn't know that shooting him was a crime, so therefore I can go”

 

That's not how the law works. The woman has no authority to allow people to look at the machines. The only person authorized would be the elections supervisor of that county and maybe one other person. But it's not anyone who works there. Procedures are in place to prevent this type of thing and it applies to business. It is called the division of duties principle and a form of internal control. Since the person was not authorized, that person too would be charged. Thus every defendant who tried to use this defense had it rejected by the courts including many January 6th defendants.

 

Yup, it is called "magical thinking" but no actual thinking is allowed, you just BELIEVE that something is what you WANT it to be and MAGAcally reality is altered.

 

Yes it is how the law works. The woman was the county election official in charge of them. That gives a reasonable person the reasonable believe that what this official is allowing you to do is allowed under her authority.

 

Yes that's how it works. I bought it on Ebay officer I didn't know it was stolen. Not a crime.

The officer at the other end of the street directed me to drive down the wrong way on this one way street officer.......no ticket.