Reply With Quote
The racketeering enhancement is treble damages, so it's a worse bargaining position for both sides. The crooks have most of the damaging information.
When you got American citizens trying to blow you up, cut your head off and shoot you to death, you'll pound a table, or, 2, Winester.
Let us proceed...
The racketeering enhancement is treble damages, so it's a worse bargaining position for both sides. The crooks have most of the damaging information.
Yes, the ones with the swords, bombs and guns who tried to cut his head off, bomb his new home and shoot him to death.
I don't think there's a snowball's chance in they offer Rudy . And I'd seriously doubt Eastman and Meadows either. My guess is all 4 go to trial.
You are probably right on that, especially Rudy.
Rudy, and to some extent Trump, would probably love a plea deal that got them off easy... the problem is that they are the targets
https://abcnews.go.com/US/chief-staf...y?id=104231281
Meadow already flipped for immunity. He's been saying that Trump was well aware fo what was going on and the consequences of his actions or lack thereof.
That article has not been corroborated, was disputed by his lawyer, and has to do with the Jan 6 federal case not Georgia. There's also a lot of ways he can be forced to testify about a narrow range of topics by Jack without "flipping" or getting immunity from Fani
I can't see a scenario where Meadows hasn't flipped early and often.
I can, he's a snake, always walking up to the edge but not stepping over. And again, there's a difference between "flipping" (actually known as a cooperation agreement where you plead out for special treatment) and being forced to testify about specific topics by being given limited immunity. Nobody knows which side of the fence Meadow's is on, there has been no confirmed reporting on that, could be either.
immunity for grand jury testimony can be fairly limited
use immunity just means that the govt agrees that the testimony that day you give to the grand jury cant be used to incriminate you
otoh, transactional immunity is when they agree ahead of time to give you immunity from prosecution for the offenses involved as long as you agree to give testimony about it
its quite likely that just for the purpose of grand jury testimony, they'd only offer the more limited "use immunity"
It is a 'sources' source but they are quoting Meadows in conversations and ABCnews has a pretty good record for integrity.
But yeah you are right. GA doesn't need Meadows. They have Trump on tape threatening the GA governor if he doesn't find the votes he wanted.
Yeah, thinking about it -- the guys nearer the top might just roll the dice on Trump's being POTUS again.
How would it be in Meadows interest to agree to that version?
i dont think the full transactional immunity even exists on a federal level. some states allow it, and usually only in most compelling cir stances.
its not even a question of accepting the offer. the government simply grants use immunity and that can allow them to compel grand jury testimony. it basically acts as though you have exercised your 5th amendment priivlege to not self incriminate, since none of what you say can be used against you. in addition to your statements alone, any info that they later learn as a result of your statements can also not be used against you
so basically, meadows wouldnt have to accept a deal. government basically says you have immunity and therefore must testify before grand jury.
a better indication of flipping would be a plea deal
In the case of Use Immunity, I take that you are still liable for any perjury you may commit while testifying? As in, the Immunity is only from prosecution of the acts described in the testimony, but you are not immune from prosecution for any crimes committed WHILE testifying?
yes, you can still get busted for perjury. just not the underlying conduct you are testifying about
or if they find incriminating evidence independent of your testimony and not found solely as a result of your testimony
My understanding, not being board certified as you are so I could get part of this wrong, is that there's an additional complication in Meadows' case because of multiple jurisdictions. So if Jack grants use immunity, where he isn't even indicted (unless it is under seal), but Fani doesn't grant immunity, where he is indicted, then any testimony to the Fed grand jury could actually be used against him in Fulton Co.
I also think the cooperation agreements work differently in the jurisdictions. In the Ellis case in Georgia for example, she plead AND got sentenced to probation in exchange for her cooperation. At the Federal level, they'll offer reduced charges but won't recommend sentencing until after your cooperation is complete. So it compels the defendant to be as helpful as possible to get as much leniency as you can.
yeah, i dont really practice crim law, let alone federal (we've worked one state crim case only), so im not an expert on the subject. i can just generally speak to the different types of immunity and why those arent necessarily indicative of flipping
but im not sure fani would have access to federal grand jury testimony anyway. i know fed attorneys can basically share grand jury stuff, but there are limited cir stances where they can disclose any of it to states attorneys
got nothing to do with being an attorney. anybody can look up the federal rules of crim pro and be more brushed up on it than me
Trump will never, ever take a plea deal, even if it gets him off easy. How he looks to his base is way too important to him.Rudy, and to some extent Trump, would probably love a plea deal that got them off easy... the problem is that they are the targets
While it is certainly debatable, I think this is only true because he is holding out hope for winning the election and thus getting off on all fed charges and setting up a cons utional crisis re: state crimes.
If not for that, Trump would definitely take a plea deal to stay out of prison. He’s a selfish coward above all else.
Oh I agree with that...I was working from the angle that he won't while being a presidential candidate. If that wasn't a thing I think he most definitely would. In the end Trump is only about saving his own ass. When he leaves politics he will still grift people for money via his MAGA fame but that won't matter nearly as much as keeping himself intact as a franchise.
Feds must give transactional immunity occasionally considering they have the ability to give witnesses new iden ies and put them in witness protection.
bene-boy
You want to see him crawl. Uh, uh. Nope, scott. You tried to blow him up. You tried to cut his head off. You tried to shoot him to death multiple times. & now you're subjecting him to the agony of crucifixion.
You s, you dirty rotten s.
He's livin' still.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
