Mueller's tactics may begin facing significant obstacles - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14915996
Nope. Another plea agreement on a process crime. It's meaningless. It's all for show. 


Plea deals aren't meaningless, regardless of your on-going effort to redefine "found guilty" as "fake news"



SO

In state courts, Trump can't pardon dick all
#14916096
Stormsmith wrote:Plea deals aren't meaningless, regardless of your on-going effort to redefine "found guilty" as "fake news"

Plea deals are not findings of guilt. They are synonymous with "no contest" pleas. There is no finding of fact by a jury. There is merely consent to a charge. I didn't say it was "fake news" either. I said it wasn't substantive as per the purpose of the investigation. If he finds nothing meaningful, it's as relevant as convicting Scooter Libby--pure political show and nothing more.
#14916101
blackjack21 wrote:Plea deals are not findings of guilt.

NO … no,no,no,no, almost ALL felony plea agreements include a definitive confession and plea of guilty as charged. Few prosecutors with any case at all will deal on a nolo-contendre basis. That's only seen when a court wants to clear it's docket of minor nuisance cases and offers community service to a long list of misdemeanor violators.

Zam
#14916192
Zamuel wrote:NO … no,no,no,no, almost ALL felony plea agreements include a definitive confession and plea of guilty as charged. Few prosecutors with any case at all will deal on a nolo-contendre basis. That's only seen when a court wants to clear it's docket of minor nuisance cases and offers community service to a long list of misdemeanor violators.

Zam


The judge must allow nolo contendre in a federal court. He does not have to. It is an admission of guilt to the current charges but it can not be used as an admission of guilt in any other case. So it is and isn’t an admission of guilt.
#14916195
One Degree wrote:The judge must allow Nola contendre in a federal court. He does not have to. It is an admission of guilt to the current charges but it can not be used as an admission of guilt in any other case. So it is and isn’t an admission of guilt.

I'd buy that in an open plea...I think I understand what you're getting at, but your first two sentences seem to conflict ? ... In a plea agreement however, it just doesn't happen, the prosecution is not so constrained and their agreement is required. Alowing it invokes all kinds of legal shenanigans unless the defendant also surrenders the right to appeal, which (imho) is nuts in a felony case.

I think we both know "Lawyers" will try anything just to see if they can get away with it (when they have a paying client) but there are "dire consequences" that restrain such action in most instances.

Zam
#14916355
Zamuel wrote:NO … no,no,no,no, almost ALL felony plea agreements include a definitive confession and plea of guilty as charged.

Which is not a finding by a jury or court. It is a confession.

Zamuel wrote:Few prosecutors with any case at all will deal on a nolo-contendre basis. That's only seen when a court wants to clear it's docket of minor nuisance cases and offers community service to a long list of misdemeanor violators.

The long list of misdemeanors is often a long list of felonies too, like assault on a police officer. That stuff is routinely plead down. Cops are expected to take punches, and cops get to kick the shit out of assailants who do that to cops. Generally, only if someone assaults a cop with a knife or gun are they going to actually face a felony trial and conviction. Cases like those against Flynn, et. al. are political in nature.

At any rate, the Speedy Trial Act calls for a trial within 70 days from a plea, and 30 days from appearing via counsel. So we will see what Mueller tries to pull. If he doesn't provide the defense with information in a timely manner, it compromises the defense and may constitute a violation of the defendant's rights.
#14916369
blackjack21 wrote:Which is not a finding by a jury or court. It is a confession.

I take your point. Technically though there is a finding … ie: "pursuant to the defendants plea, the court finds … A legal necessity, to finalize proceedings.

Cases like those against Flynn, et. al. are political in nature.

No, the case against Flynn was about acting as a foreign agent outside the law. The plea was a prosecutorial move to elicit cooperation in an ongoing investigation. Mueller is not a political operative. Trump is the one politicizing the investigation with his (unfounded) allegations. Mueller has not made a political peep.

At any rate, the Speedy Trial Act calls for a trial within 70 days from a plea, and 30 days from appearing via counsel. So we will see what Mueller tries to pull. If he doesn't provide the defense with information in a timely manner, it compromises the defense and may constitute a violation of the defendant's rights.

I'm not sure what you think the problem is. Discovery requires that Mueller provide the defense with everything he has regarding that specific case. This is a matter of making photo copies, that shouldn't be a problem. He's not subject to interrogatories, and depositions by the defense are not his responsibility.

You should believe that there -is- a case prepared. This guy is not an amateur, he's been doing this (and winning) for a long time. I think (?) Mueller's case against these Russians is largely accounting, a paper trail following $$$. That's why the defense lawyers are so anxious to derail it before it gets to court. Because once it does, the math can't lie, it can't be cross examined into tears, they have to try and argue that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. In short, they're screwed.

Zam
#14916441
Zamuel wrote:No, the case against Flynn was about acting as a foreign agent outside the law.

Flynn's plea agreement was about making false statements to the FBI. They were using the latter matter to charge him and his son. Flynn took the plea to protect his son.

Zamuel wrote:Mueller is not a political operative.

Prosecutors are always political operatives. They operate in a political branch of government.

Zamuel wrote:Trump is the one politicizing the investigation with his (unfounded) allegations.

Typically, his musings turn out to be true. The latest media blackout on the FBI having informants in his campaign is just yet another example of the deep state trying to operate independently of the constitution and laws.

Zamuel wrote:I'm not sure what you think the problem is. Discovery requires that Mueller provide the defense with everything he has regarding that specific case. This is a matter of making photo copies, that shouldn't be a problem.

Well, it's the same problem the FBI and DoJ have with Congressional overseers. They aren't providing the information.

Zamuel wrote:You should believe that there -is- a case prepared.

What I believe is immaterial. Mueller's team tried to prevent the defendants from entering a plea, because of a technicality with service of process. In other words, it seems that Mueller filed the charges anticipating that the defendants would never answer. The individuals haven't answered, but one of the corporations has done just that. Now, the defense is accusing Mueller of withholding evidence. He still has time to provide it, but time runs fairly quickly with respect to speedy trials.

Zamuel wrote:That's why the defense lawyers are so anxious to derail it before it gets to court.

They are already in court. They entered a plea voluntarily without proper service, and Mueller tried to prevent them from entering the plea.

Zamuel wrote:In short, they're screwed.

All of the elements of the crime must be proved, and apparently the defendants were charged without all of the elements present due to a failure to outline all of the elements in the jury instruction. We'll see how it plays out, but it doesn't look that great for Mueller. By the way, nobody really cares about the life of a flim flam corporation. They can easily just incorporte another one.
#14916466
blackjack21 wrote:Flynn's plea agreement was about making false statements to the FBI. They were using the latter matter to charge him and his son. Flynn took the plea to protect his son.

Plea agreements generally do reduce charges. Flynn's son was very lucky. Given the severity of the charges Flynn faced, He mast have provided some very juicy info to Mueller to get that sweet a deal. Time will tell.

Prosecutors are always political operatives. They operate in a political branch of government.

No. There are no political crimes in the USA. There are "Criminal" statutes that apply regardless of a person's politics. You're free to disagree with that only because it's true. The fact that this investigation continues illustrates how ineffectual politics are in controlling the Dept. of Justice. Trump hates it, he'd lock up Hillary, Comey, McCabe, and at least half a dozen others if he were allowed to. But American law will not allow political prosecutions.

Now, the defense is accusing Mueller of withholding evidence. He still has time to provide it, but time runs fairly quickly with respect to speedy trials.

Yeah he has lots of time to provide it, the next hearing is scheduled for June 15. I had to look it up for details, not sure how deep your info is? It seems Mueller's investigation accessed HUGE amounts of social media (in Russian).

As I understand it, Mueller has given the defense what he intends to USE as evidence. The rest of the data is extraneous and will not be used at trial, but the defense wants it anyway (a legal maneuver). Mueller will provide the raw data. At that time you can expect the "speedy trial" motion to be withdrawn and the defense to ask for an extensive continuance (another legal maneuver) to "evaluate" this huge trove of raw data (2 terabytes, the equivalent of 34,000 hours of digital music.)

They are already in court. They entered a plea voluntarily without proper service, and Mueller tried to prevent them from entering the plea.

Obviously the defendant was aware of the filing, which is the primary objective of service. So the defense claim of inadequacy of service should be VERY interesting.

As for disputing the defensive plea? Mueller's team asked for a delay in the initial hearing due to the issue of service and defense demands for discovery well in advance of court procedure. The issue of service may take precedence and complicates a pleading. I can't find anything confirming or explaining any objection by Mueller to the defense plea, all I see is that he asked for a postponement to allow his team to address the issues raised by the defense, pretty standard stuff.

The defense is working the PR angle here for all it's worth, the court is indulging them. Don't expect this to last. In fact, it may disadvantage the defense if they do in fact change their tune and start trying to drag things out.

All of the elements of the crime must be proved, and apparently the defendants were charged without all of the elements present due to a failure to outline all of the elements in the jury instruction.

That's GRAND JURY instructions. Which, I think, are considered secret. The GRAND JURY does not determine guilt or innocence, there isn't even any defense presented. The grand jury simply decides to indict or not to indict. This is just another defensive legal maneuver to tie up Mueller's team.

it doesn't look that great for Mueller.

On the contrary, it looks like desperation on the part of the defense. Mueller has a STRONG team and all the $$$ and assistance he wants. It's all much ado about nothing.

Zam 8)
#14916473
President Nixon: I have never been a quitter. To leave office is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But in the service of this office and the national interest, I hereby revoke my presidency. Effective immediately, noon tomorrow.

BLACKJACK, CHEERING HIS GOD DAMNED HEART OUT: WE FAILED YOU PRESIDENT NIXON YOU WERE TOO GOOD FOR US!!! I LOVE YOU *SMASHES BREASTS AND FRESH TATTOO UP AGAINST PRISON GLASS* I LOVE YOU NIXON I HAVE YOU IN ME!!!
#14916671
Zamuel wrote:That's GRAND JURY instructions. Which, I think, are considered secret. The GRAND JURY does not determine guilt or innocence, there isn't even any defense presented. The grand jury simply decides to indict or not to indict. This is just another defensive legal maneuver to tie up Mueller's team.

I have been on a grand jury before. They also get instructions. If the prosecution misleads a grand jury about the nature of the law in order to influence the jury to find in favor of prosecution, it may prejudice the charge. The court rarely allows a defendant to gain access to grand jury materials, because a judge usually is involved in the process.

Zamuel wrote:On the contrary, it looks like desperation on the part of the defense.

Desperate defendants don't generally show up in court and plead before they have been legally served. So it's a fairly strange way to express desperation from my perspective.

Zamuel wrote:Mueller has a STRONG team and all the $$$ and assistance he wants.

Strong may be overstating it. Mueller has already had to remove Strzok and Ohr from his team, which is staffed by many Hillary Clinton donors--none of whom have any apparent interest in Hillary Clinton's campaign using a "former" British spy to collude with Russians to write up an obviously phony dossier on Trump.

Zamuel wrote:It's all much ado about nothing.

That seems to be the story of the Mueller investigation.

SpecialOlympian wrote:BLACKJACK, CHEERING HIS GOD DAMNED HEART OUT: WE FAILED YOU PRESIDENT NIXON YOU WERE TOO GOOD FOR US!!! I LOVE YOU *SMASHES BREASTS AND FRESH TATTOO UP AGAINST PRISON GLASS* I LOVE YOU NIXON I HAVE YOU IN ME!!!

Uh... I was six years old at the time... :roll: NOTE: Every other proceeding against a president since that time has failed. This one seems to be blowing up against the people pushing for prosecution.
#14916686
blackjack21 wrote:Desperate defendants don't generally show up in court and plead before they have been legally served. So it's a fairly strange way to express desperation from my perspective.

No it exemplifies their desperation … They are already grasping at straws. As for your perspective, it's skewed. You may not realize it. You seem to think that a large group of the best, and most experienced, lawyers in this country are making third grade mistakes. Take a couple of steps back and recheck your POV.

Zam
#14916862
SpecialOlympian wrote:Just so you know, I still haven't read a single one of your posts in this thread blackjack. And I am 100% confident that I am not alone on this.

Thank you for that peculiar admission. :roll: Are you hallucinating today? :hippy: :rainbow:

Zamuel wrote:No it exemplifies their desperation … They are already grasping at straws. As for your perspective, it's skewed. You may not realize it. You seem to think that a large group of the best, and most experienced, lawyers in this country are making third grade mistakes. Take a couple of steps back and recheck your POV.

Desperate people don't show up in court and demand a speedy trial. I'm unimpressed by people who graduated from Harvard or Yale being "the best." Colleges and universities are just corporations, and their accreditation is subject to the same standards. University branding is primarily about money and political connections (i.e., the alumni), and secondarily about "the best and brightest."

The Tea Party, whose existence many establishment people refuse to admit, has faced this sort of thing with every single one of its candidates. We know why this is being done. We do not care. We have lost confidence in the establishment to run the United States.
#14916950
Zamuel wrote:No, their lawyers do though.

Zam :roll:

Unlikely. A speedy trial doesn't maximize legal fees. It does put the pressure on the prosecution to try the case immediately. I'm unimpressed by the indictments at any rate, as I think they were just window dressing for a failed special counsel--i.e., a failed coup attempt.

It will be interesting to see if Ellis is impressed by the special assistant United States attorneys roles employed by Mueller. The SAUSAs seem to be asserting the right to work for the special counsel and to also move outside of the scope of the independent counsel's investigatory scope. I'm guessing that may present a conflict of laws that Mueller should have resolved. Whether Ellis is impressed by that assertion remains to be seen. I'm guessing that people are already getting pretty tired of Mueller's act.

Mueller team's special status could save Virginia Manafort case ... or it may cause the prosecution even more problems as the government appears to be acting unfairly.

Several court filings indicate that when lawyers from Mueller's office appeared in federal court in Alexandria earlier this year, they did so not only as representatives of Mueller's office but as special assistant United States attorneys (SAUSAs) attached to the United States attorney's office there.

I think Ellis might rule, "you have to pick one role, and be constrained by that role." I have no idea how he will respond, but I don't think I would be pleased by the games Mueller is playing if I were a presiding judge. Also, judge Jackson ruled against Manafort, but used judge Ellis' language as though it were Manafort's language--obviously trying to influence judge Ellis.

No matter. I think Manfort is guilty of tax evasion--all the rest of it is bullshit. However, Mueller just casts pall over the DoJ/FBI and the justice system, which clearly wasn't his intent. He just thought Trump would fold like a cheap suit, and that hasn't happened.
#14916960
blackjack21 wrote:Unlikely. A speedy trial doesn't maximize legal fees. It does put the pressure on the prosecution to try the case immediately.

Why do you assume that's a problem? Mueller had a case prepared for presentation before he ever went to the Grand Jury with it. The speedy trial thing puts pressure on the COURT, not the prosecution. They have to create space on the docket for it.

Zam
#14917002
SpecialOlympian wrote:President Nixon:

Nixon was perhaps America's greatest president, tragically brought down by Defeatocrats and foolish Republican virtue signallers. Nixon came in after the disastrous leadership of the Commie Appeasers, Eisenhower and Kennedy and the incompetent LBJ. Nixon managed to complete Vietnamisation and turn the war around. An amazing achievement. Although the foundation for victory, without Vietnamisation was laid in the victory over the Tet offensive. A magnificent victory which the treacherous, lying, Commie loving, Liberal media managed to portray as some kind of Communist success.

The useful Republican idiots that backed Nixon's impeachment fondly imagined their bi-partisan "fair play" would be returned by the Democrats. When Bill Clinton's perjury was exposed, the depth of their gullibility was revealed.
#14917486
SpecialOlympian wrote:Be honest, Rich. You just like Nixon because of his anti-semitism.

Yeah. That's why Nixon appointed Henry Kissinger as his Secretary of State, and why he ordered Operation Nickel Grass during the Yom Kippur War.

Nixon was awesome too. He's dancing in his grave as the male chicken suckers (as he might call them) are getting their comeuppance finally at the hands of Trump. Cocaine makes you think you are smart when you are being an idiot. I think there was a lot of blow being snorted in Obama's White House. Their reputation is in tatters.

Obama should put his presidential library at the site of Cabrini Green. Candyman, Candyman, Candyman!!! :rockon: MAGA

Ireland joins South Africa in the charges of genoc[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Everything is good here, @wat0n :)

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]