quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:


The funny thing is that the attorney doesn't have to do the time that you get extra, instead of the deal that you get for cooperation. But, hey snitches get stitches.

And it for sure won't be perjury. (Why does my autocorrect keep trying to change that to surgery??)

Are you saying there is a penalty for exercising your Constitutional right to remain silent?

Your attorney can, and should make the deal if otherwise appropriate.

I thought you'd actually been inside of a court house before.

Those that cooperate get deals. Those who don't, don't.

Like I said, I apologize because I thought you had been involved in the criminal system before. Deals have a shelf life, if you tell the cops to fuck off, retain an attorney, and two weeks later try to make a deal, the value is less than what it was two weeks earlier. If there is any value whatsoever in what you have to say. It is entirely self inflicted.

The easiest way to think of it is like trying to buy house insurance after your house burns down. The time has passed.

Maybe at the level of criminal you catch.

Spend a lot of time in federal court. It's the same there too.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:


Maybe at the level of criminal you catch.

Spend a lot of time in federal court. It's the same there too.

Sometimes, I’m sure.

Clients are not often the best judge of whether they are guilty or not.

I recently enjoyed the book about the Enron prosecutions where Federal prosecutors ended up losing almost all the cases they took to trial, except the top 3 Enron guys. The other cases were eventually dismissed. Some of those prosecutors are working for Mueller now.

I also enjoyed a couple of books about Edward Bennett Williams and his firm Williams and Connally. It was said of one of them that the odds are higher that the prosecutor will end up in jail than the defendant.

I'm not saying tell the cops to fuck off to their faces, but if you think the best deal you're going to get when you're innocent but on the end of a fishing expedition is sitting down 2 v 1 the hard way, then good luck to you.

Ask everyone charged only with "lying to federal officers" how it happened - I'd wager not many had legal counsel present and there is a reason they always come in pairs.

I mean in the end if someone is guilty as sin and left ample evidence behind, yeah they are likely fucked either way. But the point is if they take the time to come to your house, you are likely a target already.

And as great as the criminal justice system is, probability and statistics tell you innocent people get locked up every day.

Re: perjury trap
Yes, thanks to Rosenstein, we have a prosecutor that’s solely reaching for a conviction, rather than truth and justice. I wish the worst for Rosenstein and his shit-eating smirk.

quote:

we have a prosecutor that’s solely reaching for a conviction, rather than truth and justice.

Not much different than the investigator who begins an investigation with no evidence, yet figures if he digs deep enough he'll find something illegal somewhere.

The last 4 paragraphs of the OP link were left off by mistake when National Review put out the article

https://www.nationalreview.com...e-mueller-interview/

....

It is fair enough to say that Flynn could have made the prosecutor’s job more difficult by being fully accurate in his answers. But anyone can give inaccurate answers because we are all subject to human error; the point is that the decision about whether the inaccuracies are criminally actionable — or whether they are inaccuracies at all — is the prosecutor’s. Even the most honest witness cannot unilaterally dictate the outcome by being perfectly truthful.

What we refer to as a “perjury” trap covers both perjury and false statements. The difference between the two is more form than substance. To oversimplify a bit, perjury is a lie under oath; a false statement or material omission is a lie told to government investigators when no oath has been administered; the potential sentence for both is zero to five years’ imprisonment.

Successful perjury traps do not get prosecuted all that often. But that does not mean perjury traps are uncommon. They tend to be used more for leverage than to prosecute as a stand-alone charge. A prosecutor who knows a reluctant witness will lie elicits the lie and then exploits the resulting specter of prosecution — along with other leverage points — to pressure the witness into spilling the beans. Or, in a jury trial, the prosecutor who suspects a defense witness will lie, sets the trap, elicits the lie, and then blows it up — not to lay the groundwork for a future perjury charge but to destroy the witness’s credibility, which helps win the trial.

In any event, it is fatuous to claim that this stuff doesn’t happen. It happens all the time. If you want to say that President Trump’s lawyers are just making excuses for a client who is prone to lie without being trapped, that is a cogent legal argument. If you instead insist that there is no such thing as a perjury trap just because the concept is being invoked by lawyers for a president you despise, then you’re playing politics . . . or you’ve let your contempt for Donald Trump get the better of you.

Are you sure about that, SDY?

Or did I just botch the cut and paste somehow? That seems much more likely, unless they fessed up somewhere.

you are good; their mistake



don't worry, if we catch you lawyers trying to pull a fast one, we'll let you know