OP
OP
USA Midterms....
- Thread starter Fab Foodie
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AuroraSaab
Squire
The American justice system in general seems to operate around plea deals and immunity deals. Can't say all this bargaining, dropping of charges and so on gives me much confidence as to the transparency of their justice system overall.
A greater punishment would be for you to read it ...
newfhouse
pleb
How very different to our own treatment of criminals like Ecclestone, Zahawi, and other wealthy individuals.
Beebo
Veteran
Yes. But we don’t have a system of one accused being given leniency to testify against another accused.
It does somewhat muddy the waters and could be very much open to abuse.
AuroraSaab
Squire
True but the plea deal/immunity doesn't seem to be an everyday feature, other than a guilty plea being taken into account in sentencing. Over here it seems more related to recouping money or saving the cost of a trial. No doubt the plea deal/immunity aspect will be suggested by Trump's lawyers as undermining witness credibility.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Isn't this more a witness protection thing though? Immunity and plea bargaining doesn't seem to be a run of the mill occurance in UK courts like it is in the US, other than the guilty plea/reduced sentence thing.
Bazzer
Well-Known Member
From what I understand of the American criminal justice system, it makes a lot of sense. Although there are differences between Federal Courts and State Courts and differences even within States as to when a case does finally reach a trial, the system appears to be designed to drag matters out; depositions; defence lawyers being paid on an hourly rate, appeals to a higher court on seemingly pretty much every decision, etc. With the consequence of cases quite literally taking years to come to trial, or the accused sitting in prison awaiting trial for months or years on end.
Even after conviction the system doesn't appear to work particularly well. For example, a number of those who will expect prison terms following the 6 January insurrection are/were held at a Washington DC holding facility, rather than at state prisons. It was at this facility the vile Marjorie Taylor Greene and her fellow insurrectionist MAGA supporting congressmen/women visited the convicts, rather than the less pleasant "Meet your new cell mate Bubba" state prisons where they will eventually be housed.
Also, the defendant has to admit in open court to committing the crime and admitting they are guilty, so a plea deal saves a lot of time and costs for State or Federal prosecutors. Time and costs which may be better spent on getting more serious cases to court, or trying to secure convictions on the head/heads of a criminal conspiracy.
Trump appears to have been particularly ill advised when choosing Georgia as his target for 'phone calls, accusations and election interference. Or his advisors were unaware of the pitfalls which could arise to him from the State's; electoral interference laws, special grand juries, the speedy trials rules and in particular the RICO statute.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Squire
That does explain a lot, thanks. I've noticed with serious violent crimes it can take years to get to court in the US. Their system is probably as underfunded as ours.
Bazzer
Well-Known Member
Trump's emergency motion in Colorado, to stay the trial which will consider his removal from the ballot on the disqualification grounds of the 14th amendment has been rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court. 😃
The hearing will now begin as planned on 30th of October. 🍿
Separately, Judge Chutkan who is the judge overseeing the Washington DC election inference Federal trial, appears to have stiffed Trump.
There has been a media application for the trial to be televised on first amendment and public interest grounds. (Federal hearings are not televised but transcriptions and/or audio files will sometimes be issued ).
Rather than making an order based on briefings, she has issued an order asking Trump to reply by 10 November, if he wants the trial televised. So, does Trump, who likes to grandstand outside court houses and on social media about judges, prosecutors and witnesses, and in the matter of the ongoing New York civil damages case, also lie about what has taken place behind the closed doors, ask for the trial to be televised so he can show his supporters how good he is in court and capable of destroying the prosecution case? Or does he go down the cowards route, reject the trial being televised and give the prosecutor and his opponents, ammunition as to why he didn't want his appearance as a defendant and witness to be shown to the public?
The hearing will now begin as planned on 30th of October. 🍿
Separately, Judge Chutkan who is the judge overseeing the Washington DC election inference Federal trial, appears to have stiffed Trump.
There has been a media application for the trial to be televised on first amendment and public interest grounds. (Federal hearings are not televised but transcriptions and/or audio files will sometimes be issued ).
Rather than making an order based on briefings, she has issued an order asking Trump to reply by 10 November, if he wants the trial televised. So, does Trump, who likes to grandstand outside court houses and on social media about judges, prosecutors and witnesses, and in the matter of the ongoing New York civil damages case, also lie about what has taken place behind the closed doors, ask for the trial to be televised so he can show his supporters how good he is in court and capable of destroying the prosecution case? Or does he go down the cowards route, reject the trial being televised and give the prosecutor and his opponents, ammunition as to why he didn't want his appearance as a defendant and witness to be shown to the public?
Bazzer
Well-Known Member
New York AG Letitia James prosecuting Trump's civil fraud trial, is calling Trump's adult children to the witness box starting with Don jnr on the 1st of November. One day for each child followed by Trump himself.
View: https://youtu.be/UCToHOlOGC4?si=Eo9KtKdQ8hLamjTz
I've seen speculation that James had planned on Trump and his children being called later in the hearing, but she saw how Trump reacted badly to Michael Cohen's testimony and decided to bring forward their witness box appearances.
View: https://youtu.be/UCToHOlOGC4?si=Eo9KtKdQ8hLamjTz
I've seen speculation that James had planned on Trump and his children being called later in the hearing, but she saw how Trump reacted badly to Michael Cohen's testimony and decided to bring forward their witness box appearances.
albion
Guru
Sounds positive news for Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/us/politics/trump-fundraising-jack-smith-election.html
However it still states the obvious intent at the end.
'The former president’s team raised nearly $250 million with widespread claims that the election had been rigged '
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/us/politics/trump-fundraising-jack-smith-election.html
However it still states the obvious intent at the end.
'The former president’s team raised nearly $250 million with widespread claims that the election had been rigged '
Bazzer
Well-Known Member
For someone who likes to grandstand about his prowess and how certain events would not have happened if he was president, Trump is doing himself no favours in the Colorado 14th amendment disqualification trial.
He is seemingly not planning on testifying, or even attending the trial. He has not submitted a deposition and has engaged as his lawyer, Scott Gessler. Gessler is a former Secretary of State for Colorado, who successfully argued in a previous case, which was taken to and approved by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, that a Secretary of State had the right to ban an individual from appearing on a State ballot.
No doubt if the decision goes against him, Trump will argue Biden interference and the other usual 💩 so readily absorbed by his cult followers.
Meanwhile in the Washington DC case due to be heard next March, following his recent outbursts, Judge Chutkan has reimposed the gag order she issued on Trump. Trump's lawyers had appealed her original gag order and in the light of the appeal she had stayed her order. But typically Trump reverted to type and made a veiled threat against Mark Meadows, Trump's former Chief of Staff, who has been granted immunity in the DC prosecution, in return for giving evidence against Trump. So the gag order is the Court's response.
He is seemingly not planning on testifying, or even attending the trial. He has not submitted a deposition and has engaged as his lawyer, Scott Gessler. Gessler is a former Secretary of State for Colorado, who successfully argued in a previous case, which was taken to and approved by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, that a Secretary of State had the right to ban an individual from appearing on a State ballot.
No doubt if the decision goes against him, Trump will argue Biden interference and the other usual 💩 so readily absorbed by his cult followers.
Meanwhile in the Washington DC case due to be heard next March, following his recent outbursts, Judge Chutkan has reimposed the gag order she issued on Trump. Trump's lawyers had appealed her original gag order and in the light of the appeal she had stayed her order. But typically Trump reverted to type and made a veiled threat against Mark Meadows, Trump's former Chief of Staff, who has been granted immunity in the DC prosecution, in return for giving evidence against Trump. So the gag order is the Court's response.
icowden
Legendary Member
Of course not. He has to follow the rule of law. He can't just make shoot up as he goes along. He's learning the hard way that the law can't be messed about or intimidated at this level.