-
Features
Mueller investigation
- Thread starter Artemus
- Start date
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
If you plead guilty, then that is the plea in a court of law. Following that, a judge will look at the plea and agree or reject possibly after some stipulations, which is a conviction. And following that is sentencing. Thank you for noting the distinction.
Papadopoulos' plea was way back in Oct 5th. It isn't clear that there was yet a conviction by the judge but I assumed there was from his court appearance since the original arrest and charge were back in July, an Oct 5th plea and verdict would make sense, but we're not necessarily there.
http://m.lawqa.com/qa/court-convictions
Ask 10 lawyers, get 10 different answers (including "no", "yes", and 8 responses that carry on to various lengths without actually answering the question).
Almost as bad as economists...
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
You were correct that there is a difference and the reason why is that there are different stages which I tried to describe. Someone who is arrested enters a plea: innocent, not guilty, no contest, etc. In the case of a plea bargain, the defendant changes plea to guilty (later). There is an actual hearing where the judge accepts or rejects it and there is a sentencing hearing. If you go to look up the case, the defendant is convicted. If he/she goes to apply to a job and the job asks if they have any convictions, they are required to say yes.
BUT there are also exceptions such as can happen with any court process, like, for example, if the defendant gets some kind of rehab and promise to wipe the slate clean with no conviction. So, for example, I think George Zimmerman got that when he attacked an off-duty police officer in a bar. He promised to do some kind of anger management therapy or something and as a result would have it wiped from his record. Normally, these kinds of things happen at pre-trial as opposed to trial or after, though. And laws may vary by state. This is a federal case as opposed to state. I don't know what kind of therapy a person would have to rehabilitate them from lying to the FBI to cover up Russian collusion of the Presidential campaign.
This particular case does not have any promise of wiping record clean, too, just a lenient sentence recommendation. So if it is not already a conviction, then it will become one, I think.
Malintent
Veteran Member
I am suggesting that you have not. You also belay a complete lack of understanding on how criminal investigations work in your responses regarding "low hanging fruit" implying there is no serious matter to investigate. It's like you think a war is over nothing because only the Privates are getting shot at the front line and the Generals are still standing, 15 minutes into gunfire... Ever watch LA law and figure out 'who done it' within 3 seconds of the beginning? Cause' that's where we are at right now... Still on the opening scene.
Malintent
Veteran Member
I watched Pelosi flounder through a question regarding impeachment this weekend... My wife and I were initially astounded at her seemingly weak and "liberal' response that was super-political... "we will just have to wait and see if any criminal charges are brought and get the full story... it is too early to talk about impeachment".
Obviously, it is not too soon. The timing is perfect. So we wondered why she was so cautious with such a Laissez-faire response....
I have a theory this morning....
Politically, around the topic of impeachment, it has the best possible optics to appear totally fair, unopinionated, willing to listen to all sides, patience, etc...
Emotionally and practically, debating and pushing for it makes logical sense... So what gives?
Pelosi knows something. Her, and likely several others on various intelligence committees, have been exposed to sufficient information that they KNOW is highly criminal, and they KNOW Muller has it, and they KNOW there is more being collected, and is only a matter of the time and care needed to construct an air-tight criminal case against the Trumps...
She must know that it is unnecessary to spend "political currency" on an inevitability... The inevitable impeachment and possible imprisonment of the Trump criminal circle, based on what she may already know Muller has and is working with.
If the FBI just tries to go straight after the Mob boss, and didn't collect the nothing henchmen first to get corroborating, closed-door testimony that can be used to prosecute the main guy', then they never would get a conviction.
Obviously, it is not too soon. The timing is perfect. So we wondered why she was so cautious with such a Laissez-faire response....
I have a theory this morning....
Politically, around the topic of impeachment, it has the best possible optics to appear totally fair, unopinionated, willing to listen to all sides, patience, etc...
Emotionally and practically, debating and pushing for it makes logical sense... So what gives?
Pelosi knows something. Her, and likely several others on various intelligence committees, have been exposed to sufficient information that they KNOW is highly criminal, and they KNOW Muller has it, and they KNOW there is more being collected, and is only a matter of the time and care needed to construct an air-tight criminal case against the Trumps...
She must know that it is unnecessary to spend "political currency" on an inevitability... The inevitable impeachment and possible imprisonment of the Trump criminal circle, based on what she may already know Muller has and is working with.
If the FBI just tries to go straight after the Mob boss, and didn't collect the nothing henchmen first to get corroborating, closed-door testimony that can be used to prosecute the main guy', then they never would get a conviction.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
Based on English Law the charged has a right to face the accuser(s) hence no closed door testimony is needed. The last Secret Services report on Russian Interference was no better than a sick joke. I think Mueller is using the correct approach, namely he searched around the area for corruption and crimes but I haven' seen anyone say Eureka yet.
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
I think her response, given the need to (as you put it) "construct an air-tight criminal case against the Trumps", is appropriate. I want every single "moderate" Republican to have no choice but to vote for impeachment.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
Indeed, better to play your hand when your opponent's back is against a wall rather than before.
Malintent
Veteran Member
I may be misunderstanding you. "closed door" does not necessarily mean "separate from the accuser". If this is the US Government versus Trump and Associates, then the accuser (the US Government - represented by Muller, in this case) would be right there behind the "closed door" with them... confronting.
What is this "sick joke" you refer to with regard to an intelligence report?
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Well this would certainly be a bombshell exploding inside FFvC big head if there is any truth to it:
http://www.newsweek.com/mueller-trump-kushner-indicted-howard-dean-702815
http://www.newsweek.com/mueller-trump-kushner-indicted-howard-dean-702815
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Speculation, I think. Dean is among the impeachamongers.
Not that that wouldn't be delicious...
Malintent
Veteran Member
Speculation?
If by "speculation" you mean the kind you make when you hear water hitting your roof and the sound of thunder close by that leads you to "speculate" that it is raining out... Then, yes.
there are those on this board, however, that might dismiss the rain saying, "the Sun isn't all that good either, you know".
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Pffft...that is just FFvC partying with his reigning hookers on the roof
That's some good shit...
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
I think speculation of this kind reflects poorly on Dean and anyone else who engages in it. He comes off as just a Mel Kiper wannabe (yes, that's a sports reference), without actually doing any of the work.
Underseer
Contributor
I'm sure all of your fellow treason-lovers think less of Dean because of this.
This is pretty much the inverse of Your Approval Fills Me With Shame.
Plenty of studies show that even if you believed that he committed treason, you would still support him, so one wonders why you bother going through all of these ludicrous mental gymnastics to convince yourself that he's not a traitor. Don't all those contortions hurt your brain?
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
I don’t know who you think you’re talking to, but you’ve obviously confused me with someone else. And despite my feelings about SCROTUS and his minions, I’ll express my opinions without regard for any “liberal company line”. If that makes me a “treason-lover” in your eyes, I’ll invite you to go fuck yourself.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
There appears to be conspiracy and treason in our midst. Why can't we look at data such as emails made public in order to speculate about who is going down next? Should we merely be information receivers and never think then comment on our thoughts?
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
Let me be more specific. We, as in people who post here, can fire away. Public figures who go on TV and do it are attention whores who don't deserve any. A former DNC chairman going on TV and announcing, "I think Kushner is next to be indicted" is behavior I'd expect to see on Faux News.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Okay, but i think you may be jumping to a conclusion. Why can't politicians represent our speculative, informed decisions? What's wrong with bringing attention to it? ...especially since the Republican media is trying to silence the whole issue... is it whoring, really, or seeking?
ETA: I will add that personally I think it's two giant leaps away from Fox News & Pravda Friends. I mean, Dean gave a plausible scenario about a real issue. Fox News & Pravda Friends promotes implausible scenarios about non-issues. So, for example, they might cover some specifics tonight about the Clinton/Uranium One scandal such as how Mueller was in "office" at the time and therefore compromised, needing to recuse himself from the investigation. It literally makes no sense and is also based on a foundation that isn't real. It's like an alt-reality within an alt-reality. Dean's comments were more about plausible reality within real reality.
Last edited: