People make plea deals all the time. In fact, most criminal cases do not go to trial. They are plead.
And in the course of a plea deal, people often plead guilty to something less than the full charges of which they were originally accused.
And they sometimes lie to the judge. It's a part of the American criminal justice system. The accused is aware he's lying. The prosecutor may be aware the accused is lying. Even the judge may be suspect the defendant is lying.
Why does the alleged criminal lie? Because he's trying to get a reduced sentence.
We had a case like that reported right here on this blog. A man who ran a school in Monsey NY was accused of molesting a student. According to some, the man was innocent -- COMPLETELY innocent. Yet he plead guilty to the crime to avoid a trial.
I know someone who had a case of being accused of being technically guilty of something like having child porn in his possession. I think I wrote about it a while back on this blog. When he was around maybe nineteen, he'd been in contact online with someone he thought was an underage teenage girl. It was actually a man who sent him some pictures it was illegal to possess. My friend maintains the pictures went to his email inbox, but were never accessed by him.
Meanwhile, he enisted in the Air Force. At some point after he was discharged, authorities showed up at his home. He was carted off to a Federal prison several states away. He was given a choice: plead guilty and serve two years, or go to trial and get ten years.
My friend felt he was totally innocent. Yes, he admits he communicated with the "girl", and maybe even planned to try and visit "her." But nothing ever happened. And he wasn't aware of the pictures in he received.
In any case, which legal option do you think he picked? Right. He lied. Got off from the heavier sentence.
I was once locked up. Unfairly. I am not ashamed to admit I lied to get out. I would do it again.
Can we please quit with the double standards? http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/07/rabbi-gabriel-bodenheimer-pleads-to.html?m=1
I've never stood stronger with the President than now. This case has witch hunt written all over it. The last part of this article https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1068284002 spells it out.
--- “You have to be able to persuade a jury that this was ultimately about the election,” said Columbia Law School professor Richard Briffault. ---
If you read the plea deal, the D.A. was not relying on Cohen's word. They had voicemails, emails, and text messages that were seized from his office to back up his version of events.
Yes, of course, you are completely correct. The question is: were they enough to convict Mr. Cohen.
These questions are judgement calls. For example, a man in Florida shot and killed another man who pushed him down after the first man, the shooter, harrassed the second man's wife.
The sheriff determined the shooting was justified under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. So the sheriff declined to refer the case for prosecution.
There was a public outcry. So the prosecutor independently examined the case and charged the shooter.
Who was right? The sheriff or the prosecutor? The answer lies in the future. If the prosecutor gets a conviction, he was right. If not, the sheriff was right.
In most cases, as I noted, a defendant doesn't want to gamble, so he pleads guilty. And in many cases the defendant is innocent.
I don't know, and I don't think you know, what a jury would do in this case. Unless there's a "smoking gun" such as someone saying the election will surely be lost if the payoff doesn't go through, I highly doubt there would be any conviction.
I think the prosecutor was grandstanding, knowing full well the case wouldn't go to trial, and thus was able to keep the evidence away from the public, leaving innuendo in its place.
You are wrong. The idea that if the prosecutor cannot get a conviction then the sheriff was right demonstrates ignorance of the law. The decision made now is whether to arrest or not arrest. That depends on the standard of probable cause. The question of whether to convict or not convict depends on the standard of reasonable doubt. So the inability to secure a conviction does not mean that the arrest was made incorrectly. As far as this case is concerned, I do not know if there is a smoking gun or not. Truth be told, I would not be so up in arms about the payment even if it was done to "influence the election." But the fact is that the defense of Trump himself in this matter has gone from "I don't know anything about it at all" to "I found out about it later but Cohen paid on his own and was not reimbursed" to "He was reimbursed" to "I knew about it beforehand and arranged the payment but it is not illegal because it came from my own money." This is all a further demonstration that one cannot believe a word that emerges from his mouth on this or any other issue.
So which Clinton do you trust on every word they say? Double standard.
This article seems to have a different take on the legalities. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/01/us/stand-your-ground-florida-shooting-trnd/index.html
I don't trust any Clinton on "every word they say," but I trust either of them a lot more than I trust Trump. Basically everyone said that the sheriff was wrong there.
Fun fact:
ReplyDeletePeople make plea deals all the time. In fact, most criminal cases do not go to trial. They are plead.
And in the course of a plea deal, people often plead guilty to something less than the full charges of which they were originally accused.
And they sometimes lie to the judge. It's a part of the American criminal justice system. The accused is aware he's lying. The prosecutor may be aware the accused is lying. Even the judge may be suspect the defendant is lying.
Why does the alleged criminal lie? Because he's trying to get a reduced sentence.
We had a case like that reported right here on this blog. A man who ran a school in Monsey NY was accused of molesting a student. According to some, the man was innocent -- COMPLETELY innocent. Yet he plead guilty to the crime to avoid a trial.
I know someone who had a case of being accused of being technically guilty of something like having child porn in his possession. I think I wrote about it a while back on this blog. When he was around maybe nineteen, he'd been in contact online with someone he thought was an underage teenage girl. It was actually a man who sent him some pictures it was illegal to possess. My friend maintains the pictures went to his email inbox, but were never accessed by him.
Meanwhile, he enisted in the Air Force. At some point after he was discharged, authorities showed up at his home. He was carted off to a Federal prison several states away. He was given a choice: plead guilty and serve two years, or go to trial and get ten years.
My friend felt he was totally innocent. Yes, he admits he communicated with the "girl", and maybe even planned to try and visit "her." But nothing ever happened. And he wasn't aware of the pictures in he received.
In any case, which legal option do you think he picked? Right. He lied. Got off from the heavier sentence.
I was once locked up. Unfairly. I am not ashamed to admit I lied to get out. I would do it again.
Can we please quit with the double standards?
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/07/rabbi-gabriel-bodenheimer-pleads-to.html?m=1
I've never stood stronger with the President than now. This case has witch hunt written all over it. The last part of this article
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1068284002
spells it out.
---
“You have to be able to persuade a jury that this was ultimately about the election,” said Columbia Law School professor Richard Briffault.
---
If you read the plea deal, the D.A. was not relying on Cohen's word. They had voicemails, emails, and text messages that were seized from his office to back up his version of events.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, you are completely correct. The question is: were they enough to convict Mr. Cohen.
ReplyDeleteThese questions are judgement calls. For example, a man in Florida shot and killed another man who pushed him down after the first man, the shooter, harrassed the second man's wife.
The sheriff determined the shooting was justified under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. So the sheriff declined to refer the case for prosecution.
There was a public outcry. So the prosecutor independently examined the case and charged the shooter.
Who was right? The sheriff or the prosecutor? The answer lies in the future. If the prosecutor gets a conviction, he was right. If not, the sheriff was right.
In most cases, as I noted, a defendant doesn't want to gamble, so he pleads guilty. And in many cases the defendant is innocent.
I don't know, and I don't think you know, what a jury would do in this case. Unless there's a "smoking gun" such as someone saying the election will surely be lost if the payoff doesn't go through, I highly doubt there would be any conviction.
I think the prosecutor was grandstanding, knowing full well the case wouldn't go to trial, and thus was able to keep the evidence away from the public, leaving innuendo in its place.
You are wrong. The idea that if the prosecutor cannot get a conviction then the sheriff was right demonstrates ignorance of the law. The decision made now is whether to arrest or not arrest. That depends on the standard of probable cause. The question of whether to convict or not convict depends on the standard of reasonable doubt. So the inability to secure a conviction does not mean that the arrest was made incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteAs far as this case is concerned, I do not know if there is a smoking gun or not. Truth be told, I would not be so up in arms about the payment even if it was done to "influence the election." But the fact is that the defense of Trump himself in this matter has gone from "I don't know anything about it at all" to "I found out about it later but Cohen paid on his own and was not reimbursed" to "He was reimbursed" to "I knew about it beforehand and arranged the payment but it is not illegal because it came from my own money." This is all a further demonstration that one cannot believe a word that emerges from his mouth on this or any other issue.
So which Clinton do you trust on every word they say? Double standard.
ReplyDeleteThis article seems to have a different take on the legalities.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/01/us/stand-your-ground-florida-shooting-trnd/index.html
I don't trust any Clinton on "every word they say," but I trust either of them a lot more than I trust Trump.
ReplyDeleteBasically everyone said that the sheriff was wrong there.