Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[BamaATL 16593]

39 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

 

 

I didn't know Herve Villechaize played baseball too.  What a talent.  

[achooloco 1087]

8 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

 First in = best deal.

 They care about what you can bring them.   If they get that info from defendant #1, the deal defendant #2 gets is usually less.   It is not so much what bad thing the flipping defendant did that concerns of them, it’s what the flipping defendant can bring them to aid them in their conviction of the other codefendants - who are usually higher up.

And that makes sense. And not to beat up on @TwiceHorn too much but he did say (and I agree) that the GA indictments were the most “loose” (sorry, paraphrasing). And just as important, not such a slam dunk legally as the Smith case. Cool, don’t disagree. 

but now that Rico doing what Rico does and Powell, cheese bun go guilty… what’s the assessment? Still unruly and loose? Or do the guilty pleas shore up the messy-ness of the initial filing? 

[Gatorubet 30811]

And that makes sense. And not to beat up on [mention=248]TwiceHorn[/mention] too much but he did say (and I agree) that the GA indictments were the most “loose” (sorry, paraphrasing). And just as important, not such a slam dunk legally as the Smith case. Cool, don’t disagree. 
but now that Rico doing what Rico does and Powell, cheese bun go guilty… what’s the assessment? Still unruly and loose? Or do the guilty pleas shore up the messy-ness of the initial filing? 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/ken-chesebro-memos-trump-coconspirator-00110458
Not practicing federal criminal law, I’m a bad guy to ask. But if you look at that link, it will remind us that Chesbro is co-conspirator 5 in Jack’s J6 case against trump.   Chesbro was intimately involved in January 6, and the Fulton county charge was about his efforts to get the alternate slate of electors in Georgia. To get his deal he has to sing.  I have no idea if the state and federal DAs cooperate to any great extent, or if Chesbro attorneys made a plea deal with Jack as well, because Chesbro essentially pled guilty to part of the scheme Jack accused him of in the January 6 indictment. 
The Cheese man was all up in the planning of January 6 attempt to stop the electoral college count.   He was also in touch with Ginni Thomas after the election in the run up to J6, and my fever dream is that he can provide evidence to indict that bitch as well.
Eastman might have had the overall strategy planned, but Chesbro was king of the granular details on how to stop the electoral college count and get the false electors approved by Pence.  Chesbro knows shit.  and speaking of shit, I’m sure Trump and the other co-conspirators are doing a lot of that right now.

[DDD Dad 14670]

8 hours ago, SaucyJack said:

 

 

Username checks out. 
 

also,

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32121]

7 hours ago, achooloco said:

And that makes sense. And not to beat up on @TwiceHorn too much but he did say (and I agree) that the GA indictments were the most “loose” (sorry, paraphrasing). And just as important, not such a slam dunk legally as the Smith case. Cool, don’t disagree. 

but now that Rico doing what Rico does and Powell, cheese bun go guilty… what’s the assessment? Still unruly and loose? Or do the guilty pleas shore up the messy-ness of the initial filing? 

I think what I did say was that the indictment recited potentially excessive predicate acts, many of which were not criminal in and of themselves.

One way RICO charges fail is that the predicate acts are insufficient to support the enterprise.  So, overpleading is incentivized.  But I think there are more than 200 and closer to 300 predicate acts, understanding that some of them may get "tossed."

I thought, still think, that might be kind of excessive, And it appeared that it was going to aid Meadows and maybe others in getting their cases removed to federal court.

Ain't no one we really care about guilty of a felony yet.  One we seem to care quite a bit about got off with a misdemeanor (Powell).  And we don't and can't know the motivations for and backgrounds of these pleas.  Objectively speaking, those who think they were a result of case weakness are about as likely to be right as those who think Cheeseman and Powell gave up vital "state's evidence." Of course we hope the  the latter, but there's really no way of knowing until later.  It's all speculation at this point, but you'd certainly hope and think Willis has this knocked.

So, this may be going to plan.

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32121]

7 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/ken-chesebro-memos-trump-coconspirator-00110458
Not practicing federal criminal law, I’m a bad guy to ask. But if you look at that link, it will remind us that Chesbro is co-conspirator 5 in Jack’s J6 case against trump.   Chesbro was intimately involved in January 6, and the Fulton county charge was about his efforts to get the alternate slate of electors in Georgia. To get his deal he has to sing.  I have no idea if the state and federal DAs cooperate to any great extent, or if Chesbro attorneys made a plea deal with Jack as well, because Chesbro essentially pled guilty to part of the scheme Jack accused him of in the January 6 indictment. 
The Cheese man was all up in the planning of January 6 attempt to stop the electoral college count.   He was also in touch with Ginni Thomas after the election in the run up to J6, and my fever dream is that he can provide evidence to indict that bitch as well.
Eastman might have had the overall strategy planned, but Chesbro was king of the granular details on how to stop the electoral college count and get the false electors approved by Pence.  Chesbro knows shit.  and speaking of shit, I’m sure Trump and the other co-conspirators are doing a lot of that right now.

Yeah, although Cheeseman wasn't a super high-profile target (upthread I think several didn't even know who he was),  securing his plea to a felony count of filing false documents relating to the electoral certificates and scheme, all by itself, establishes for both this case and the federal one, the illegality of an element of the 1/6 conspiracy.

This kind of just went from, "we were just advocating a legal position" to we did some crimes.

And, presumably Cheeseman can provide good evidence as to Trump's knowledge and endorsement of the plan.

If so, that is a major boon I think to both this case against Trump and the 1/6 case.

[TwiceHorn 32121]

Another loose end here.  I saw an MSNBC thing (yes fairly speculative) analyzing whether Sidney Powell has federal criminal exposure.

One would think that she and her lawyers would not plead in this case unless securing some kind of deal with the feds to avoid prosecution.  But in her plea "colloquy" with the judge, she was asked if there were any other agreements pertaining to the plea and she answered "no," indicating that there possibly was no such deal with the feds.

So, her testimony here, secured by the plea agreement, could not only help the federal case, but give her more exposure to federal indictment.  She ostensibly can't plead the Fifth because of the plea agreement.

As to her own individual acts, I'm not sure Powell faces much federal exposure, other than as a conspirator in the overall 1/6 conspiracy.  She is, after all, unindicted co-conspirator 3, most likely.

One of the usual reasons a co-conspirator is unindicted is that they are providing "state's evidence."  Another is that their guilt is not as easily proven as the indicted conspirators.  Or maybe indictments will be forthcoming upon winning the main case against Trump, or as limitations expire (late 2025).

Hard to know why someone like Powell remains unindicted.

[Slacks 7084]

19 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Now imagine Obama in a tan suit

Tan suit. Grey Slacks. Whatever it takes. 

[wackawacka 199]

Does this all absolve Mueller or implicate Mueller and his team for not pursuing a case against Trump and Co?

[Slacks 7084]

15 hours ago, Goredho said:

I would like to state for the record that I would go down on Jo at a kid's musical.

[RomaVicta 30663]

14 hours ago, TexasEd said:

And I have not verified this but according to this guy Misty Hampton's (Coffee County election supervisor) 15,000 e-mails were finally handed over to the Georgia DA yesterday.  2+2 new evidence  led to the new pleas?

 

 

Thanks. I found that enormously valuable for getting a better grasp of RICO, many of the players in this conspiracy, and what those miscreants were doing.

Highly recommended.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, wackawacka said:

Does this all absolve Mueller or implicate Mueller and his team for not pursuing a case against Trump and Co?

Not pursing obstruction of justice charges is on Mueller, Barr, Rosenstein, Garland and possibly Wray who let the statute of limitations run out on several overtly obstructive acts (firing the AG and FBI director).

 

[RomaVicta 30663]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hard to know why someone like Powell remains unindicted.

I know you wrote that her answer to the judge indicates no other agreements, but how formal does an agreement have to be for her to answer "yes?"

Is it possible that she has reached an understanding of some sort with the fed prosecution, but it's not in the interest of the feds to have that revealed just yet? Is there a technicality in language that would allow that?

I'm a layman, but it seems to me that if Powell would jump at the first chance to avoid felony conviction and jail in Georgia, she would also have a similar motivation to have the same plan at the federal level. Now that I write this, I wonder if this could be the reason she remains unindicted in the federal case. At the moment, there evidently couldn't be a plea deal in the fed case as she is unindicted.

Perhaps, she is to become the key witness to meetings we know about and those we do not know about.

As a former federal prosecutor, she surely knows how to play the game to keep her ass out of the slammer. 

[TexasEd 8271]

11 hours ago, dcbc said:

Trump already tried to delay the trial date.  That pretty much guts any future speed trial claim on his part.  Powell, et al. got to play the speedy trial because of the threat to try all the defendants together, not that that ever was the real plan.  Anyway, she asked for a speedy trial, and she got one, and by virtue of that, she got the first opportunity to plead "guilty" and make a deal to testify against Trump.

uh, I was talking about Chesebro not Powel.  

[Nivek 17433]

Harrison Floyd is going to get the chair.

[TexasEd 8271]

17 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Didn't they already get Scott Hall to plead too?  He's the bail bondsman, right?

[wildcat09 29601]

2 hours ago, wackawacka said:

Does this all absolve Mueller or implicate Mueller and his team for not pursuing a case against Trump and Co?

Neither. Mueller didn’t believe he had the legal power to prosecute a sitting president. Whether or not he actually did is something that he theoretically could have challenged, but no DOJ prosecutor would ever do so.

[Gatorubet 30811]

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

Didn't they already get Scott Hall to plead too?  He's the bail bondsman, right?

This is correct.  I forgot about that a couple posts up thread as well.

[Fastbreak 4057]

Does pleading guilty to a felony get you disbarred? If not, what does?

[Gatorubet 30811]

Does pleading guilty to a felony get you disbarred? If not, what does?

in Louisiana it does.   It depends on the felony.   Non-lawyers here need to understand that there are a range of penalties employed to discipline attorneys. Which is a good thing, as there is a range of bad conduct that logically should result in differing penalties.  In Louisiana, which I assume is typical, an attorney’s conduct can result in a private admonishment.   A non-public slap on the wrist that, for lack of a better word, goes on their permanent record if something else comes up later. There is also a public admonishment.   The bar journal and newspapers print that the Supreme Court of Louisiana publicly admonished someone for doing something improper, and briefly states what that was. The offending attorney has to notify every court that they practice in of any discipline, which can result in separate disciplinary actions in each of the courts where that attorney practices.    So state A may have a different disciplinary result for that lawyer - for the same conduct - than is given in state B.   In addition, an attorney can be suspended for months or for  years, and that suspension can be totally suspended…or the attorney serve all or part of the suspension.  For instance, the attorney could be suspended for a year with the imposition of suspension suspended for six months…so the attorney would only be suspended six months.
A quirk of Louisiana discipline is that if you are suspended for more than a year, then you have to re-apply to the bar for admission, which may be problematic. If you were suspended for less than a year, once that suspension is over, and you have met certain terms you are automatically back in the club. 
Finally, there is disbarment. Which means a total revocation of the right  to practice law.   It is rare, but sometimes an attorney will be admitted again after being permanently disbarred.  You might see that were an attorney was addicted to drugs or alcohol, and his or her terrible conduct was related to the addiction. The damage done to the clients and public is so great they have to be disbarred, but once they conquered their demons and prove that for years they are no longer a threat to the public or clients, they can apply to the court for admission to the bar.
Which is all to say that there are lots of options available to the body that disciplines an attorney in any given state.     Something like what Chesbro pled to is an intentional breaking the laws felony, which, under Louisiana standards, should get the man disbarred. 
TL/DR: Maybe.  But here, should. 

[Pato del Muerto 53615]

Maybe put the abridged version in front?

[TwiceHorn 32121]

6 hours ago, wackawacka said:

Does this all absolve Mueller or implicate Mueller and his team for not pursuing a case against Trump and Co?

Also given that all crimes charged against Trump other than in Manhattan occurred long after Muellers appointment and discharge as special counsel, it kinda has nothing to do with it. 

[Gatorubet 30811]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe put the abridged version in front?

I certainly could, but I would probably be the first poster on surly or shaggy that puts the TLDR comment at the start of the post.

 Or maybe you could see it’s a long verbose Ubet post and just skip it?

[TwiceHorn 32121]

2 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Does pleading guilty to a felony get you disbarred? If not, what does?

A felony conviction usually leads directly to disbarment or suspension for the term of any "deferred adjudication" arrangement, the suspension being of the type that requires reapplication for admission.

The one caveat being the type of felony, depending on the jurisdiction.

But, a felony conviction for filing false documents pretty seriously implicates one's honesty, especially in "official" matters, so odds are pretty good that that felony leads to disbarment/suspension.

 

[Pato del Muerto 53615]

10 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I certainly could, but I would probably be the first poster on surly or shaggy that puts the TLDR comment at the start of the post.

 Or maybe you could see it’s a long verbose Ubet post and just skip it?

Just because everyone else does it wrong doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it right. 

[Gatorubet 30811]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Just because everyone else does it wrong doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it right. 

[Pato del Muerto 53615]

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You’re posting at a Texas longhorn football and Texas rangers basebal fan…

[Born to Run 6601]

You’re posting at a Texas longhorn football and Texas rangers basebal fan…

Is this post asking a poster, that thoroughly answered a complicated question, to post better? And a Rangers fan?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Disregard,  wrong thread, end user

Edited October 21, 2023 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Gatorubet 30811]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You’re posting at a Texas longhorn football and Texas rangers basebal fan…

 

 

j/k. your point is strong. Texas football finally made it out of the wilderness tho….  Florida still wandering around like Cabeza de Vaca on mushrooms

[Pato del Muerto 53615]

1 hour ago, Born to Run said:

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You’re posting at a Texas longhorn football and Texas rangers basebal fan…

Is this post asking a poster, that thoroughly answered a complicated question, to post better? And a Rangers fan?

That post?  No. 

[DDD Dad 14670]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

 

 

j/k. your point is strong. Texas football finally made it out of the wilderness tho….  Florida still wandering around like Cabeza de Vaca on mushrooms

Let’s not talk about Billy Madison Napier. It’s too painful. 

[The Dog 44874]

Re:Trump and jail

 

[Macanudo 13350]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

A felony conviction usually leads directly to disbarment or suspension for the term of any "deferred adjudication" arrangement, the suspension being of the type that requires reapplication for admission.

The one caveat being the type of felony, depending on the jurisdiction.

But, a felony conviction for filing false documents pretty seriously implicates one's honesty, especially in "official" matters, so odds are pretty good that that felony leads to disbarment/suspension.

 

The fact that a felony conviction does not automatically result in disbarment is a huge reason why our legal system is so flawed.

[TwiceHorn 32121]

Just now, Macanudo said:

The fact that a felony conviction does not automatically result in disbarment is a huge reason why our legal system is so flawed.

It mostly does, with a small bit of wiggle room depending on the offense.

I was able to keep a good lawyer's license who had a deferred adjudication for a drug felony that she accepted because her dumbass criminal lawyer didn't think deferred would get her disbarred/suspended.

She had a drug problem, she knew it, she voluntarily shut down her practice because of it before any of this happened.  The drugs were her boyfriend's and she didn't want to have to testify against him, but he was pretty much a junkie piece of shit.

She got sober, got her shit together and has a thriving family law and probate practice now.

It was a good result.

So, yeah, take your black and white and cram it up your ass.

[Macanudo 13350]

There is right.   There is wrong.   And then there are lawyers arguing semantics for billable hours.*

 

BTW, Twice, I really do appreciate your thoughts and input on these threads but the legal profession does as much CYA and protecting each other as any other.  And they get away with a shit ton.  

Edited October 22, 2023 by Macanudo

[G650 14456]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It mostly does, with a small bit of wiggle room depending on the offense.

I was able to keep a good lawyer's license who had a deferred adjudication for a drug felony that she accepted because her dumbass criminal lawyer didn't think deferred would get her disbarred/suspended.

She had a drug problem, she knew it, she voluntarily shut down her practice because of it before any of this happened.  The drugs were her boyfriend's and she didn't want to have to testify against him, but he was pretty much a junkie piece of shit.

She got sober, got her shit together and has a thriving family law and probate practice now.

It was a good result.

So, yeah, take your black and white and cram it up your ass.

I 100% do not want her having a law license after that description so you can take that and shove it up your ass.

[Beau Vine 55901]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was able to keep a good lawyer's license who had a deferred adjudication for a drug felony that she accepted because her dumbass criminal lawyer didn't think deferred would get her disbarred/suspended.

[Bookman 4769]

59 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Re:Trump and jail

 

I've never understood why his supporter see him as strong.

[The Dog 44874]

6 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I've never understood why his supporter see him as strong.

It’s the bluster.

[Bookman 4769]

1 minute ago, The Dog said:

It’s the bluster.

Yeah, his supporters seem like they're easily sold.

[Gatorubet 30811]

38 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

The fact that a felony conviction does not automatically result in disbarment is a huge reason why our legal system is so flawed.

Jesus, your simplistic takes are a beating. Let’s say a lawyer has a second DUI, which is deemed a felony on the second conviction.  Let’s also say that each time there was no accident involved - and the lawyer, was barely over the legal limit - like a .06.

You’re take is that the lawyer should be automatically disbarred for that, cause “felony”.  You just advocated for treating a rapist murderer the same as the unfortunate two DUI guy. That is a truly ridiculous take. Which is why every felony is not an automatic disbarment.  That would be just as nonsensical is everyone who commits a felony should have the same automatic 30 years in jail. 

While a bar disciplinary procedure is not a criminal proceeding, the criminal process is a good analogy. In both of them, there are a broad range of bad acts.  So in both of them there are a range of penalties. It is basic common sense and basic fairness.

[TwiceHorn 32121]

26 minutes ago, G650 said:

I 100% do not want her having a law license after that description so you can take that and shove it up your ass.

Well you'd be wrong, because she's never had any more trouble with the law or the bar and she's been practicing 20 years since.  She's a good person and a good lawyer.

And she wasn't entirely freed of discipline, it just wasn't "compulsory discipline" with no further questions asked.  She went before a grievance committee that found she hadn't been practicing law actively (working as a paralegal) since before the arrest and conviction and hadn't done any of the shit that drug addicts are liable to do and had about five years of solid recovery and sobriety by the time they got to it.

Black and white justice is no justice at all.

You know I generally like and respect you, but you've been quite a dick lately.  Everything ok in your life?

[TwiceHorn 32121]

51 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

There is right.   There is wrong.   And then there are lawyers arguing semantics for billable hours.*

 

BTW, Twice, I really do appreciate your thoughts and input on these threads but the legal profession does as much CYA and protecting each other as any other.  And they get away with a shit ton.  

Sorry, but, this strikes at the heart of something I am most passionate about, and that's giving addicts a break and a second chance.  Some other folks that have made galactic mistakes, also.

This is my greatest piece of 12th step work to date and I am proud of it.  Not a single solitary minute of this was billed to her, by me or the colleagues that helped me with it.  It was a labor of love (not for her).  I get kind of lathered up about it.  Thank God the republican Supreme Court was a lot saner then and thank God for Deborah Hankinson who assembled a majority that didn't include cunts Priscilla Owen, Greg Abbott, or Nathan Hecht.  Did include Cornyn, though, so he has a small lifetime break from me.

Edited October 22, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[miguelito 11520]

She was a good kid.

[atomheartbevo 90692]

I just assume most lawyers do cocaine at some point. '80s and '90s movies taught me that.

[tx 3 putt 78810]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well you'd be wrong, because she's never had any more trouble with the law or the bar and she's been practicing 20 years since.  She's a good person and a good lawyer.

And she wasn't entirely freed of discipline, it just wasn't "compulsory discipline" with no further questions asked.  She went before a grievance committee that found she hadn't been practicing law actively (working as a paralegal) since before the arrest and conviction and hadn't done any of the shit that drug addicts are liable to do and had about five years of solid recovery and sobriety by the time they got to it.

Black and white justice is no justice at all.

You know I generally like and respect you, but you've been quite a dick lately.  Everything ok in your life?

she was part of a group / plan To over throw our government 

fuck her traitor ass. She should be swinging from a tree with her fellow traitors

shes far from a ‘good person’   

Edited October 22, 2023 by tx 3 putt

[TwiceHorn 32121]

6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

she was part of a group / plan To over throw our government 

fuck her traitor ass. She should be swinging from a tree with her fellow traitors

shes far from a ‘good person’   

Dude.  Pay attention.

[Gatorubet 30811]

10 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

she was part of a group / plan To over throw our government 

fuck her traitor ass. She should be swinging from a tree with her fellow traitors

shes far from a ‘good person’   

two different people, my brother. 

[Chewbacca 7830]

The fact that a felony conviction does not automatically result in disbarment is a huge reason why our legal system is so flawed.

But, but, let Twice give you all the reasons why it's proper.