When you plea deal you don't plea guilty to the worst of the charges, otherwise why would you deal?
To get a the prosecution to ask the judge for a reduced sentence for your crimes.
For example, you and a group of friends rob a bank. You use a gun so it's armed robbery for all, but they don't have enough evidence to charge everybody with conspiracy and the police cannot ID a number of people involved.
You decide to give up your friends because the prosecutor says he will recommend a light sentence for you. You will be required to plea guilty to the whole thing in order to be seen as a credible witness. In return they promise a reduction of your sentence to time served and probation. YOU will plea to the whole set of crimes, not part of them, or the argument for the defense will be "You didn't charge him for doing the same thing, why are you charging my client?" Also they will impeach you as a witness.
So a prosecutor doesn't reduce your charges, it damages his case, they reduce the punishment they ask the court to give you instead and get you to plea guilty for the whole lock stock and barrel because it bolsters their case.
Nope, he only copped a plea for lying to the FBI. He CLAIMS he tried to arrange meetings with the Russians during the campaign, but he's not been charged or convicted for that.
Like, maybe, Trump isn't doing such a bad job after all?
Impossible. According to CNN he drinks way too much diet coke for that.
No, no, no.. It's the Two Scoops of Ice Cream when everybody else gets one and the rabid consumption of McDonalds... You need to actually WATCH CNN sir!
Publish them... SHOW us all this "Evidence" I want to SEE it. Not hear about it. I can hear lies from ALL directions. SHOW ME THE TRUTH!
Exactly.. I'd settle for a transcript of the intercept myself.. Not that some intercept transcript means much at this point. There have been SO many invented things reported about this now that turned out to be false that I'm pretty skeptical every time something new pops up.
What we have now isn't even hearsay. It's basically somebody saying that somebody else heard a third person say something. But you can bet we have a federal case now!
For the last 12 moths it's been "Collusion".. I'm good with the change because it means they cannot keep the pretense going any more so they changed terms..
Were those Putin's exact words or the MSM ubiquitous translation?
Read the linked story.. They don't quote any conversation in Russian or English. All they say is somebody heard something, they reported this to Trump who apparently didn't react as they expected.
How's this noteworthy? It's not even hearsay as far as the rules of evidence goes. It's somebody claiming that somebody reported the contents of a conversation heard by somebody else.
You can get pharmaceutical grade opioids mail order w/o a prescription...
Until then, do not commit fraud and then blame somebody else for letting you.
Actually.... I don't think this is an issue. I've seen national suppliers claim that all they need is the numbers on the boxes your contacts come in to ship you replacements. Makes sense as to why the place I go for eyeglasses charges extra for the prescription to be written out and didn't provide the boxes the last time I got contacts..
Your description of "tainted" then involves the states, not the federal government. Once the results are certified by the state, those are the results from that state. You do recall all the bantering back when Al Gore lost to Bush right? The issue was the same kind of thing. The certified vote count from the state comes from the state's process. So if somebody is altering vote counts, the states are responsible for dealing with it before they certify their results.
The campaign or individuals on the campaign? Campaigns don't do crimes, individuals do. Such hypothetical crimes are for individuals to answer for, but don't change the election. The votes cast are the votes cast. That's how the outcome of the election is determined regardless.
Politically there may be hell to pay for stuff done during a campaign or for a party (Watergate anyone?) but the election is not vacated. The law doesn't go back and let you re-do the vote because in this country the vote count is the vote count and the winner is the winner. So, there is no way to go back to Jan 20, 2017 and put HRC in the Whitehouse, if that's what you want, nor can you impeach Trump and have HRC take office in his place even if you caught Trump dead to rights red handed cheating.
Have at it if you think it's going to work... I'm not saying it won't be effective, I'm saying it won't be effective enough for either the House or Senate.
Looking at the house elections, democrats gain some seats, but not enough to gain control. I'll give them 15-20 pickups, far short of the 32 they need. Ryan remains the speaker and the republicans still control the house come 2019.
The Senate is a horse of a totally different color. At first blush, democrats lose seats overall. They have 10 seats at risk, many of them from very red states (like ones where Trump won by 20% or more), republicans have many fewer seats at risk and a number of those are like Ted Cruz who won't lose in Texas. Republicans gain maybe 3 seats with some churn in a couple of states. Again, control is maintained by the Republicans.
Of course, all this is before we know who's running, so a huge grain of salt needs to be taken with this. Once we know who the competitors are, a clearer and better prediction can be made.
In Alabama the issue was the primary that put Moore on the ticket with less than a majority. We had the same issue in the last presidential primary that got us Trump, who I supported over HRC in the general, but wasn't anybody's choice in the party.
What happened in both cases was that the "right" diluted their votes by splitting them among multiple candidates which matched their views much better than the eventual winner. In both cases, the process selected the middle of the road candidate, flaws and all, and both Moore and Trump have obvious flaws. Personally, I believe that the runner up would have been a much better candidate in both cases.
Even with this, the democrats are marginal at best. They simply MUST get their voting base out to the polls, every time. Democrats have grown dependent on gimmicks and exploiting various voting blocks to make this happen. Their last president was elected on the "first black president" gimmick. The first election this worked like a dream for them, but the second election it wasn't nearly as effective. Then HRC tried to use the "First Woman President" gimmick, which nearly worked for her, but didn't quite do it. I can only imagine what 2020's gimmick will be, but I'd almost bet the farm on a black woman. Donna Brazil anybody?
So, in the mid-terms the Democrats need to find some gimmick to run with. They are dependent on it. "Impeach 45" and "Net Neutrality" are apparently on the table as is all this stringing up "Sexual harassers" and making them face public shaming for allegations provable or not, real or not. Good luck with that.
The problem for democrats in these midterms is actually getting any control. I don't see how they can take the house though it's likely they make gains there, but the Senate is going to be a tougher lift for them with 10 of their seats up in mostly red states and thus in play and republicans not at nearly as much risk. There will be some churn in the Senate, but it's seems likely republicans pick up seats. Of course, all this is before we know who's actually running...
Look it up... The suit you joined with HI and others on the "travel ban" and got the injunction on? Yea, that injunction got vacated by the supreme court 7 to 2, so I think you are going to lose that one.
Tell me you knew this... PLEASE... If not, you need to check your news sources because they are not telling you the whole truth.
Interesting how many want this sort of government regulation to stay in place? Love the Chicken Little mentality that the sky is falling when in fact we really do not know what's really going to happen?
Yea, returning to the internet of 2015 is a scary thing... Armageddon is upon us!
Actually, what's scary is the amount of acrimony we've seen on this. Somebody actually called in a bomb threat over this... Shesh people, calm down! The world isn't going to end, at least not because of some crazy FCC rule change. Take a deep breath, we will get though this.
Personally, I think the issue here is finding a set of political issues to gin up the base for 2018. Voter turn out is driven by this kind of thing, or so the theory goes.
LOL.. Yea they did.. Makes me laugh though, the FCC gets to make this rule and the states cannot force their will. They might actually get some judge to legislate from the bench and grant them a temporary injunction (Say in the 9'th Circuit or some other circus) but that will go the way of the injunctions on the Travel Ban EO eventually.
Good luck suing the FCC fellas...You are going to need it... But we all know this is political posturing and not about the law.
What on earth are you talking about? There is no such thing as a "tainted" election, the votes are counted and certified in each state, electors appointed and they cast their votes which is reported to congress. Congress accepts the report from each state for how their electors voted, breaks any ties and certifies the election and we have a president elect. You don't go back at this point, regardless of what happened before, it's done and not reversible.
So, why the question about tainted elections? Do you think there was something amiss in an election or something? Which election and what do you suppose happened? I will tell you that if you claim an election was "tainted" it better be something significant, not just some alleged activity for which no proof can be found or you are engaging in some seriously dangerous behavior for this country.
True, but the president appoints and a majority of congress approves or not. Pence would get his choice because I doubt the democrats would want to be seen turning his choice down just for spite, and it would be just for spite.
I suppose it would depend on the circumstances of Pence taking power though. IF Trump is forced out (impeached/convicted or resigns under duress) the democrats would be stupid to be seen bashing Pence after bashing Trump. I can see the voters getting really tired of the partisan game playing by then. If Trump is incapacitated or dies in office, the sympathy factor will preclude democrats wanting to be seen as bashing Pence.
I don't see impeachment/conviction being even remotely possible regardless of what 2018 brings us in the house. You might manage to float it though the house after 2018 but It's far from sure democrats will take the house back. (I'm betting not). If you do manage to get articles of impeachment though the house I doubt Trump will resign under democratic pressure, doesn't seem to be his style. The Senate won't vote to convict regardless of what happens in 2018 (it takes 2/3rds you know). So Trump remains president though January 20, 2021.
But I have a question... What would be the "high crimes and misdemeanors" in this hypothetical impeachment? I cannot seem to come up with anything that's plausible and serious enough to warrant what you trying to do here. Just because folks like to yell "Impeach 45" at campaign rallies doesn't make it possible or advisable...
I think most don't understand "tort reform" and I don't think you are an exception, at least about what's being suggested with this.
What MOST people who actually think about this mean with Tort Reform doesn't mean a cap on ACTUAL damages, but on punitive damages. So, to use your example of having to provide care for someone the rest of their lives the money for that wouldn't be touched. What does get capped is the punitive part of a judgment, which is the "We have to make you pay a bunch of money so you won't do this again" part of a judgment.
Further, I would recommend that we do what they do in the UK (and other countries) where the loser pays the winner's legal fees. This will discourage the more frivolous suits from being filed for stupid stuff that just gums up the works, but that's another issue.
The free market DOES fix a lot of stuff. We survived a LONG time in this country without all the medical related regulations and licensing requirements. Where I'm not advocating a return to the wild west days where you could become a doctor by just claiming to be one, I do think that the current regulatory structure in the USA stifles innovation in the provision of inexpensive medical services. The regulatory structure today assumes only one model and there is no way to innovate because of this.
This was my first thought... Who accepts route changes from people you don't trust? I suppose *somebody* did this and everybody who trusted them fell in line, but I'd yank who ever sent me such changes out of my trusted list regardless of who they where...
If Trump is found to be illegally elected then Pence is too.
Trump was legally elected. The results have been certified by all the states, the Electoral college have voted and the results legally reported to congress from the states. There is no going back, regardless of how this came about. It's history, it cannot be changed now.
Apart from death, incapacitation, resignation or impeachment, Trump and Pence are in office until noon, January 20, 2021, or 2025 should they win their second election in 2024.
Not suggesting that. If Mueller discovers there was in fact collusion and therefore Trump can't legitimately be POTUS, I'd hope that they'd throw out his entire cabinet and force a special election.
You cannot be serious.. A "Special election"?
We are a nation of laws and the whole thing starts with the US Constitution which addresses how it works when the office of president is vacant and it's NOT by special election. The office goes to the Vice-president who then appoints a new VP of his/her choice. Should BOTH the President and Vice-president be incapacitated at the same time, the office would fall to the speaker of the house, right now that would be Paul Ryan... There is a whole list of who gets the office in the case where all the previous people are unavailable but we've never had to go past VP at this point.
Assuming "Rick" is a US citizen, I'm shaking my heat wondering what kind of school he went too which seems to have omitted any discussions about the US constitution because his education is sorely lacking, painfully so. A "special election" ? Now that's sad.
Single payer would not bankrupt America. How about cutting your fucked up military budget? Lol. Omg the US used to really be a beacon and now it's just a fucked up mess.
Really? Having the government fork over 14% of GDP could be covered by the military budget? I think you GREATLY over estimate what we spend on the military. Something like 3.5% of GDP. So yea, let's zero out the defense budget and have single payer... NOT possible.
And.. Have you considered what situation we'd be in without a military?
Slashdot Mirror
When you plea deal you don't plea guilty to the worst of the charges, otherwise why would you deal?
To get a the prosecution to ask the judge for a reduced sentence for your crimes.
For example, you and a group of friends rob a bank. You use a gun so it's armed robbery for all, but they don't have enough evidence to charge everybody with conspiracy and the police cannot ID a number of people involved.
You decide to give up your friends because the prosecutor says he will recommend a light sentence for you. You will be required to plea guilty to the whole thing in order to be seen as a credible witness. In return they promise a reduction of your sentence to time served and probation. YOU will plea to the whole set of crimes, not part of them, or the argument for the defense will be "You didn't charge him for doing the same thing, why are you charging my client?" Also they will impeach you as a witness.
So a prosecutor doesn't reduce your charges, it damages his case, they reduce the punishment they ask the court to give you instead and get you to plea guilty for the whole lock stock and barrel because it bolsters their case.
George Papadopoulos. Google it.
Nope, he only copped a plea for lying to the FBI. He CLAIMS he tried to arrange meetings with the Russians during the campaign, but he's not been charged or convicted for that.
Like, maybe, Trump isn't doing such a bad job after all?
Impossible. According to CNN he drinks way too much diet coke for that.
No, no, no.. It's the Two Scoops of Ice Cream when everybody else gets one and the rabid consumption of McDonalds... You need to actually WATCH CNN sir!
Publish them... SHOW us all this "Evidence" I want to SEE it. Not hear about it. I can hear lies from ALL directions. SHOW ME THE TRUTH!
Exactly.. I'd settle for a transcript of the intercept myself.. Not that some intercept transcript means much at this point. There have been SO many invented things reported about this now that turned out to be false that I'm pretty skeptical every time something new pops up.
What we have now isn't even hearsay. It's basically somebody saying that somebody else heard a third person say something. But you can bet we have a federal case now!
Hacking? It's just the word of the day...
For the last 12 moths it's been "Collusion".. I'm good with the change because it means they cannot keep the pretense going any more so they changed terms..
Were those Putin's exact words or the MSM ubiquitous translation?
Read the linked story.. They don't quote any conversation in Russian or English. All they say is somebody heard something, they reported this to Trump who apparently didn't react as they expected.
How's this noteworthy? It's not even hearsay as far as the rules of evidence goes. It's somebody claiming that somebody reported the contents of a conversation heard by somebody else.
You can get pharmaceutical grade opioids mail order w/o a prescription...
Until then, do not commit fraud and then blame somebody else for letting you.
Actually.... I don't think this is an issue. I've seen national suppliers claim that all they need is the numbers on the boxes your contacts come in to ship you replacements. Makes sense as to why the place I go for eyeglasses charges extra for the prescription to be written out and didn't provide the boxes the last time I got contacts..
So... The Supreme Court's website is now run by the Russians? Wow.... That Kaspersky Labs virus thing must be serious.
I think you meant "Trump bad, Hillary worse"
I can live with that... My choice during the primaries was NOT Trump, but once he won it was a pick the lessor of two evils for me.
Your description of "tainted" then involves the states, not the federal government. Once the results are certified by the state, those are the results from that state. You do recall all the bantering back when Al Gore lost to Bush right? The issue was the same kind of thing. The certified vote count from the state comes from the state's process. So if somebody is altering vote counts, the states are responsible for dealing with it before they certify their results.
The campaign or individuals on the campaign? Campaigns don't do crimes, individuals do. Such hypothetical crimes are for individuals to answer for, but don't change the election. The votes cast are the votes cast. That's how the outcome of the election is determined regardless.
Politically there may be hell to pay for stuff done during a campaign or for a party (Watergate anyone?) but the election is not vacated. The law doesn't go back and let you re-do the vote because in this country the vote count is the vote count and the winner is the winner. So, there is no way to go back to Jan 20, 2017 and put HRC in the Whitehouse, if that's what you want, nor can you impeach Trump and have HRC take office in his place even if you caught Trump dead to rights red handed cheating.
Have at it if you think it's going to work... I'm not saying it won't be effective, I'm saying it won't be effective enough for either the House or Senate.
Looking at the house elections, democrats gain some seats, but not enough to gain control. I'll give them 15-20 pickups, far short of the 32 they need. Ryan remains the speaker and the republicans still control the house come 2019.
The Senate is a horse of a totally different color. At first blush, democrats lose seats overall. They have 10 seats at risk, many of them from very red states (like ones where Trump won by 20% or more), republicans have many fewer seats at risk and a number of those are like Ted Cruz who won't lose in Texas. Republicans gain maybe 3 seats with some churn in a couple of states. Again, control is maintained by the Republicans.
Of course, all this is before we know who's running, so a huge grain of salt needs to be taken with this. Once we know who the competitors are, a clearer and better prediction can be made.
In Alabama the issue was the primary that put Moore on the ticket with less than a majority. We had the same issue in the last presidential primary that got us Trump, who I supported over HRC in the general, but wasn't anybody's choice in the party.
What happened in both cases was that the "right" diluted their votes by splitting them among multiple candidates which matched their views much better than the eventual winner. In both cases, the process selected the middle of the road candidate, flaws and all, and both Moore and Trump have obvious flaws. Personally, I believe that the runner up would have been a much better candidate in both cases.
Even with this, the democrats are marginal at best. They simply MUST get their voting base out to the polls, every time. Democrats have grown dependent on gimmicks and exploiting various voting blocks to make this happen. Their last president was elected on the "first black president" gimmick. The first election this worked like a dream for them, but the second election it wasn't nearly as effective. Then HRC tried to use the "First Woman President" gimmick, which nearly worked for her, but didn't quite do it. I can only imagine what 2020's gimmick will be, but I'd almost bet the farm on a black woman. Donna Brazil anybody?
So, in the mid-terms the Democrats need to find some gimmick to run with. They are dependent on it. "Impeach 45" and "Net Neutrality" are apparently on the table as is all this stringing up "Sexual harassers" and making them face public shaming for allegations provable or not, real or not. Good luck with that.
The problem for democrats in these midterms is actually getting any control. I don't see how they can take the house though it's likely they make gains there, but the Senate is going to be a tougher lift for them with 10 of their seats up in mostly red states and thus in play and republicans not at nearly as much risk. There will be some churn in the Senate, but it's seems likely republicans pick up seats. Of course, all this is before we know who's actually running...
So the democrats are going to run the midterms on restoring Net Neutrality... Good luck! (You are going to need it.)
Let the demagogues on the issue continue!
Um.. Word of advice, if you care to listen. You need something else other than "Trump Bad, we oppose" and this.
Look it up... The suit you joined with HI and others on the "travel ban" and got the injunction on? Yea, that injunction got vacated by the supreme court 7 to 2, so I think you are going to lose that one.
Tell me you knew this... PLEASE... If not, you need to check your news sources because they are not telling you the whole truth.
Interesting how many want this sort of government regulation to stay in place? Love the Chicken Little mentality that the sky is falling when in fact we really do not know what's really going to happen?
Yea, returning to the internet of 2015 is a scary thing... Armageddon is upon us!
Actually, what's scary is the amount of acrimony we've seen on this. Somebody actually called in a bomb threat over this... Shesh people, calm down! The world isn't going to end, at least not because of some crazy FCC rule change. Take a deep breath, we will get though this.
Personally, I think the issue here is finding a set of political issues to gin up the base for 2018. Voter turn out is driven by this kind of thing, or so the theory goes.
What's worse than a regulation?
One that is either selectively enforced, or not enforced at all.
LOL.. Yea they did.. Makes me laugh though, the FCC gets to make this rule and the states cannot force their will. They might actually get some judge to legislate from the bench and grant them a temporary injunction (Say in the 9'th Circuit or some other circus) but that will go the way of the injunctions on the Travel Ban EO eventually.
Good luck suing the FCC fellas...You are going to need it... But we all know this is political posturing and not about the law.
True.. It was a done deal when the new FCC commissioners were appointed. Who knew? I did..
Some might argue that it was set to happen when Trump became the apparent president elect on November 9, 2016.
What on earth are you talking about? There is no such thing as a "tainted" election, the votes are counted and certified in each state, electors appointed and they cast their votes which is reported to congress. Congress accepts the report from each state for how their electors voted, breaks any ties and certifies the election and we have a president elect. You don't go back at this point, regardless of what happened before, it's done and not reversible.
So, why the question about tainted elections? Do you think there was something amiss in an election or something? Which election and what do you suppose happened? I will tell you that if you claim an election was "tainted" it better be something significant, not just some alleged activity for which no proof can be found or you are engaging in some seriously dangerous behavior for this country.
True, but the president appoints and a majority of congress approves or not. Pence would get his choice because I doubt the democrats would want to be seen turning his choice down just for spite, and it would be just for spite.
I suppose it would depend on the circumstances of Pence taking power though. IF Trump is forced out (impeached/convicted or resigns under duress) the democrats would be stupid to be seen bashing Pence after bashing Trump. I can see the voters getting really tired of the partisan game playing by then. If Trump is incapacitated or dies in office, the sympathy factor will preclude democrats wanting to be seen as bashing Pence.
I don't see impeachment/conviction being even remotely possible regardless of what 2018 brings us in the house. You might manage to float it though the house after 2018 but It's far from sure democrats will take the house back. (I'm betting not). If you do manage to get articles of impeachment though the house I doubt Trump will resign under democratic pressure, doesn't seem to be his style. The Senate won't vote to convict regardless of what happens in 2018 (it takes 2/3rds you know). So Trump remains president though January 20, 2021.
But I have a question... What would be the "high crimes and misdemeanors" in this hypothetical impeachment? I cannot seem to come up with anything that's plausible and serious enough to warrant what you trying to do here. Just because folks like to yell "Impeach 45" at campaign rallies doesn't make it possible or advisable...
I think most don't understand "tort reform" and I don't think you are an exception, at least about what's being suggested with this.
What MOST people who actually think about this mean with Tort Reform doesn't mean a cap on ACTUAL damages, but on punitive damages. So, to use your example of having to provide care for someone the rest of their lives the money for that wouldn't be touched. What does get capped is the punitive part of a judgment, which is the "We have to make you pay a bunch of money so you won't do this again" part of a judgment.
Further, I would recommend that we do what they do in the UK (and other countries) where the loser pays the winner's legal fees. This will discourage the more frivolous suits from being filed for stupid stuff that just gums up the works, but that's another issue.
The free market DOES fix a lot of stuff. We survived a LONG time in this country without all the medical related regulations and licensing requirements. Where I'm not advocating a return to the wild west days where you could become a doctor by just claiming to be one, I do think that the current regulatory structure in the USA stifles innovation in the provision of inexpensive medical services. The regulatory structure today assumes only one model and there is no way to innovate because of this.
Exactly this.
This was my first thought... Who accepts route changes from people you don't trust? I suppose *somebody* did this and everybody who trusted them fell in line, but I'd yank who ever sent me such changes out of my trusted list regardless of who they where...
If Trump is found to be illegally elected then Pence is too.
Trump was legally elected. The results have been certified by all the states, the Electoral college have voted and the results legally reported to congress from the states. There is no going back, regardless of how this came about. It's history, it cannot be changed now.
Apart from death, incapacitation, resignation or impeachment, Trump and Pence are in office until noon, January 20, 2021, or 2025 should they win their second election in 2024.
Not suggesting that. If Mueller discovers there was in fact collusion and therefore Trump can't legitimately be POTUS, I'd hope that they'd throw out his entire cabinet and force a special election.
You cannot be serious.. A "Special election"?
We are a nation of laws and the whole thing starts with the US Constitution which addresses how it works when the office of president is vacant and it's NOT by special election. The office goes to the Vice-president who then appoints a new VP of his/her choice. Should BOTH the President and Vice-president be incapacitated at the same time, the office would fall to the speaker of the house, right now that would be Paul Ryan... There is a whole list of who gets the office in the case where all the previous people are unavailable but we've never had to go past VP at this point.
Assuming "Rick" is a US citizen, I'm shaking my heat wondering what kind of school he went too which seems to have omitted any discussions about the US constitution because his education is sorely lacking, painfully so. A "special election" ? Now that's sad.
Single payer would not bankrupt America. How about cutting your fucked up military budget? Lol. Omg the US used to really be a beacon and now it's just a fucked up mess.
Really? Having the government fork over 14% of GDP could be covered by the military budget? I think you GREATLY over estimate what we spend on the military. Something like 3.5% of GDP. So yea, let's zero out the defense budget and have single payer... NOT possible.
And.. Have you considered what situation we'd be in without a military?