Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?


Jumbo

Recommended Posts

Just now, mistertim said:

 

Yeah makes sense. If you give them some guarantee that they can't be prosecuted for the other stuff after a plea deal then they could plead guilty to the one charge, then refuse to provide what they proffered and there wouldn't be much the prosecution could do about it. 

 

So why not charge for all you have?

 

Or did they 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, twa said:

 

So why not charge for all you have?

 

Or did they 

 

Um, because its a plea deal, that's how those work as far as I understand it. The more you can provide on someone higher up the food chain the better a deal you'll get. Also, Seth Abramson brought up another point in his twitter thread. After reading the court documents, he said (paraphrasing) that Mueller was likely charging him with the most innocuous lies so he could shield from Trump or others who he may be homing in on exactly how much or what Flynn may have divulged. So it may very well mean that what Flynn proffered was seriously damning stuff.

 

Or you could just believe that, with all of the crazy **** that it increasingly seems there is to pin Flynn to the wall with, all that a large group of some of the best prosecutors and legal minds in the country could really get him on were the most banal lies he told. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I havent read it, but this is typical of a cooperating witness. 

Yup, SOP over here in crim law land.

 

Even when we get a prosecutor to drop MJ charges, it's via a nolle prosequi, which means "not prosecuted."  Says the prosecutors are choosing not to prosecute.  However, as a quirk of NPs, the charges can be brought back within 1 year of the date of the NP.

 

So technically tons of cases that are totally resolved have no legal protection from being prosecuted again.  But practically speaking, as long as you don't, like, go to a prosecutor's house and be like "Hey remember when I got that weed charge dismissed?  Well watch this!" *snorts 4 foot line of coke then spits on prosecutor*, you're fine, mainly because the charges are dismissed pursuant to an agreement.

 

WHICH TWA KNOWS BUT HE IS BEING PURPOSEFULLY OBTUSE ABOUT

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

Or you could just believe that, with all of the crazy **** that it increasingly seems there is to pin Flynn to the wall with, all that a large group of some of the best prosecutors and legal minds in the country could really get him on were the most banal lies he told. 

 

Well honestly I haven't been impressed,

 

of course they are getting paid as long as it takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Well honestly I haven't been impressed,

 

of course they are getting paid as long as it takes.

Paid GOVERNMENT salaries.

 

You do realize that literally each and every one of those people could pull high six figures, if not seven figures, ANYWHERE.  They're some of the highest power attorneys in the world.  They are literally losing thousands of dollars a week by staying on the investigation instead of going to/back to the private realm.

 

This is like when people accuse climate scientists of making up man-made climate change for grant money, which is a pittance, when they could switch sides and shill for Exxon and make MASSIVE BANK.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

Paid GOVERNMENT salaries.

 

You do realize that literally each and every one of those people could pull high six figures, if not seven figures, ANYWHERE.  They're some of the highest power attorneys in the world.  They are literally losing thousands of dollars a week by staying on the investigation instead of going to/back to the private realm.

 

This is like when people accuse climate scientists of making up man-made climate change for grant money, which is a pittance, when they could switch sides and shill for Exxon and make MASSIVE BANK.

 

Almost all of these people left jobs as partners at K street law firms where they made at least 10 times as much money as they do working for the DOJ. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Almost all of these people left jobs as partners at K street law firms where they made at least 10 times as much money as they do working for the DOJ. 

 

and I hear these things can take years and years. 

 

no wonder they are trying to flip people. :kiss-smileys:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

and I hear these things can take years and years. 

 

no wonder they are trying to flip people. :kiss-smileys:

Okay seriously, this trolling has to stop.

 

You went from "they're dragging this out for the money" to "they're flipping people to rush it and finish it to get back to their high paying jobs" in literally a single post.

 

 

giphy (1).gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

So technically tons of cases that are totally resolved have no legal protection from being prosecuted again.  But practically speaking, as long as you don't, like, go to a prosecutor's house and be like "Hey remember when I got that weed charge dismissed?  Well watch this!" *snorts 4 foot line of coke then spits on prosecutor*, you're fine, mainly because the charges are dismissed pursuant to an agreement.

And my understanding is that there is incredible weight on prosecutors to not abuse the fact that they could still bring changes down the road.

 

Just like there's incredible weight on judges to honor agreements between parties, if if they don't seem quite right.

 

Otherwise that process collapses on itself as defense lawyers and prosecutors begin to think they cannot trust anyone. There's real value in respecting the trust of the system.

 

Twa's shtick is often entertaining, but in this case it's dull and boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

he legitmately thinks if he repeats "no collusion" it means there really was no collusion.  he's trying to speak it into existence

 

I think that is going to be their sticking point no matter what. Even if Mueller comes out with 30 indictments including various charges on everyone from Trump on down, they'll try to find a way to say that none of it matters because there is no specific indictment that says "Colluding with Russia" (since there is no such crime as "collusion" anyway). They truly are just idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...