Did Cheese-bro and Powell get off easy? Damn right they did! But I can’t imagine that it’s not worth it.
Why do I say that?
As far as I can tell, with the Georgia RICO case, two is the magic number.
IANAL , but you need two or more people for the conspiracy / criminal enterprise part. And you need two or more crimes. Between Powell and Cheese-bro, you’ve got two people conspiring with Trump. And between Powell and Cheese-bro, who both pled guilty, but not to the same crime, you’ve got two different crimes.
The paragraph below was shot down by LAO.
Again, IANAL , but it seems at least plausible that Fani Willis no longer has to prove the conspiracy or those two crimes. Is it possible that there could be a partial ruling – based the facts of the case – like in the NY civil trial? That a judge could rule that RICO is be a given, and that a least two crimes could be a given, and Fani could then go about trying to prove the rest of the details?
Even if that’s wishful thinking on my part, I would surely like to be in the position that Fani Willis is now in. Whether a judge rules that way at the outcome or not, she’s got two conspirators, two additional crimes, and two convicted participants in the bank. Not to mention that she doesn’t have to let the 17 16 other defendants and their attorneys preview her case.
I’d say that Fani is surely baking all he cakes and eating all the popcorn!
Open thread.
Update: Balloon Juice commenter (and attorney) LAO makes the case for this:
No matter how many people cooperate with the government, Willis must prove every element of the crime charged.
I can’t argue with that!
moops
So, now we have 3 guilty pleas, since Jenna flipped today. Perhaps to more other crimes and to more people.
Evap
Wouldn’t it be sweet if everybody except Trump flipped?
LAO
Short answer: nope.
ETA: I am a criminal defense attorney
WaterGirl
@moops: As far as I can tell, all Ellis admitted to was lying about the election results. No surprise there! Not sure why she got such a good deal, unless it’s to lure more flies (conspirators) in with the honey of a sweet deal.
She’s a pretty small fish. Maybe Fani also wants to get the number of defendants small enough that the judge won’t try to break up the trial. She REALLY wants to put on her case exactly once.
E.
@LAO: Slightly longer answer, nope, and that’s a good thing.
japa21
@LAO: Every party has its pooper.
WaterGirl
@LAO: I’m okay with that.
As I said, even without that (possibly too hopeful) scenario, I think it still gives her two conspirators with Trump and two separate crimes in the bank.
@japa21: I stand by the rest of it. See my reply to LAO.
LAO
Personally, I also think that Willis is doing a great job but this post is really misleading. It’s fundamentally wrong, WG you should consider removing it.
LAO
@E.: absolutely.
WaterGirl
@LAO: Okay, I added an update to say that you shot down that paragraph.
How is the rest of the post misleading?
Am I wrong that you need two for the criminal conspiracy and two separate crimes? As far as I can tell, that’s what is required for George RICO.
WaterGirl
@E.: Say more about that?
Chris Johnson
@LAO: Seems plausible enough. Perhaps it would be better to drop a link to WHY this notion is misleading and wrong?
I take it ‘default proof of RICO’ is the sticking point: having these two flip is still useful, otherwise why even give them the opportunity. It’s fine with me if it doesn’t mean ‘automatic RICO’. It’s further arguments in favor of RICO conspiracy, powerful ones.
LAO
@WaterGirl: ah, I know this may be shocking to learn but the mere fact a criminal agrees to cooperate with the government doesn’t transform that person into a trustworthy truth teller. There is no bank in criminal law
WaterGirl
@LAO:
It seems to me that Willis and the judge would look like fools if they make an agreement and allow a plea deal with someone they think is lying.
cain
@Evap: I’d love to see at the end Trump flipping and taking a bunch of congressional folks with him. Find out where all the Russian funded assholes are.
WaterGirl
@LAO: What phrases would you prefer instead of “in the bank”?
She has 3 convictions in the RICO case under her belt. Is that better?
WaterGirl
@LAO: Really misleading is a strong statement. I would really appreciate more of an explanation of what is misleading. Particularly after my acknowledgement in the post that the question I posed up top got shot down with a NO answer.
JaySinWA
@WaterGirl: What happened to the bailbondsman? Is he chopped liver? (I count 4 plea deals)
Chris Johnson
@LAO: Ah, bingo, got it.
These people can flip all they want and say anything we like, but that doesn’t make it automatically carry any more weight than if they were in court lying their asses off and saying things we DON’T like.
It just makes one kind of argument into another kind of argument, and the result is more to do with how much weight the arguments carry, and what the truth of the situation is supposed to be. That’s the goal, whatever the intentions of whichever witnesses.
I still think it helps to have these people flip, but I think they’d have been screwed if they didn’t.
WaterGirl
@JaySinWA: Apparently so! (chopped liver)
So is Willis really down to 15 from the original 19?
Mousebumples
@WaterGirl – since I see you in the thread and I’m too lazy to email right now, do you have Ohio addresses for postcards? (if yes, I’ll send an email later with #s)
Thanks!
LAO
@WaterGirl: As I mentioned in comment #13 in a flippant manner, a defendant has the absolute right to challenge the testimony of any witness, especially a cooperator. Remember that cooperator has received a benefit for his/her testimony (no jail time). A jury is absolutely entitled to reject any witness, especially those witnesses with a direct interest in the outcome.
While there is no question that Willis’ case is strengthened by the expected testimony of co-conspirators it’s not correct to conclude that any prosecution is a slam dunk.
WaterGirl
@Chris Johnson: Well, the people who cut these deals are totally screwed if they do lie. Assuming they get caught.
I don’t see any of them being willing to risk that, but what do I know?
WaterGirl
@Mousebumples: Yes, I do!
WaterGirl
@LAO: Fair enough. They have their reward, but it’s also very high risk if they are lying.
I still believe that Fani Willis is in a very good position right now.
Do you think she is not baking a cake and eating popcorn? :-)
Mousebumples
@WaterGirl: awesome! The 4 year old is back at school today, so I’m hoping to do some postcards tonight. 😊
WaterGirl
@Mousebumples: Yay for finally getting over what she had!
We had a rule at our house growing up. If you were sick, you had to stay home one more day after you thought you were over it.
West of the Rockies
@moops:
I thought some no-name low level person flipped before Powell. If so, that’s 4 out of 18.
scav
At least my investments in decorative ketchup futures are trending up for bit.
ETA:
fuck, I finally recognize the inspiration for those damn Christmas threes.
WaterGirl
@moops: @JaySinWA: @West of the Rockies:
Yes. We have the bail bondsman, Powell, Cheese-bro, and Ellis. In that order, I believe.
19 – 4 = 15
edit: I am kind of sad that the Cheese and Kracken jokes are no longer relevant.
moops
If the only person that gets a harsh punishment is Trump, then the GOP will not learn any lessons, and will coup again if given a chance.
LAO
@WaterGirl: Your presumption is that if a cooperator tells the government what the government wants to hear, than the cooperator must be telling the truth.
I want Trump to (1) get a fair trial and (2) be convicted of every crime he’s been indicted for. However, my main point of contention is that we shouldn’t conflate the standards of a civil case with a criminal case. No matter how many people cooperate with the government, Willis must prove every element of the crime charged.
Chris Johnson
@WaterGirl: Agreed. I think the point is, they switched sides. We’re entitled to be happy they switched sides, and even think that they wholeheartedly flipped and wouldn’t dare screw up, but they’re still just witnesses, just people making claims. They’re just different claims than they would have been.
Makes sense to me. I still think this helps. I agree that if you’re a lawyer it’s SUPER important to remain clear that it’s not an auto-win and doesn’t mean conclusions are reached for the court. That’s a whole separate process which one hopes is heavily slanted against Orange Insurrectionist by these flips.
Again, otherwise what use would they be? It’s cool that none of it means automatic guilt, though, because that would be sinister and weird.
WaterGirl
@LAO:
Well, actually my presumption is that if a cooperator tells the government what they want to hear, but they are lying when they do so, the cooperator is a fool making a very high-risk move because they are screwed if they get caught.
So assuming they are lying is not my go-to position.
Omnes Omnibus
@WaterGirl: She is in a better position than she was without the cooperation of these codefendants. The defense is free to attack them as offering self-serving testimony in return for a deal. Powell is nuts, and jurors could decide that her testimony is unreliable for that reason. IOW there’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip.
Chief Oshkosh
@WaterGirl: Happens all the time with prosecutors.
WaterGirl
@LAO:
I can’t argue with that!
E.
@WaterGirl: They are just witnesses, human witnesses. They provide evidence that can be examined and tested in front of a jury. We rely on juries to determine the facts in a case, and we use (require, actually) evidence to assist them. In this country, everybody has a right to test the evidence used against them. It keeps the place marginally honest, kinda, in theory, at least for the well-heeled or those fortunate to be facing an honest and thoughtful jury.
WaterGirl
@E.: I can’t argue with that, either!
piratedan
@LAO: This would be a situation where others would admit to nominal guilt and participation in hopes of a reduced sentence that they cut with whatever jurisdiction. Because there is no honor among thieves, the claim that they are telling lies to make a better deal has to be considered?
JaySinWA
@WaterGirl: I am sure we will get snackin’ on the Cheese n’ Kraken jokes when they are testifyin’ for the in-Peach state RICO.
WaterGirl
@JaySinWA: Oh, that makes me feel better! :-)
I didn’t want to have to pull the Cheese and Kracken rotating tag.
WaterGirl
They say the best way to get engagement on the internet isn’t to ask a question, but to make a statement. Then a million people jump in to tell you why you are wrong.
WaterGirl
I thought they were going to have another speaker vote at 4pm. I guess that went out the window when Trump came out with his statement.
Call me crazy, but I still think that these are the most likely outcomes: 1) the Rs either end up with McCarthy, 2) 10 Rs get fed up and either don’t show up for a vote or they vote PRESENT.
I don’t see 5 Rs voting for Jeffries, but most voters will never understand that if 10 vote PRESENT, they give the win to the Ds.
LAO
@WaterGirl: thank you for striking out that paragraph. I’m done arguing with you, we shall just agree to disagree on the veracity of cooperators.
and I repeat that I do agree that Willis and the prosecution is in better position today than it was when the indictment was unsealed.
Eunicecycle
@Mousebumples: I received a postcard in the mail today urging me to vote Yes on Issue 1! It’s not the Postcards to Voters group because the wording (which I know by heart now) was different. But it was kinda fun to get the postcard.
ETA it was from a Lisa, in case it’s anyone here!
JaySinWA
Has anybody put together a list of defendants, charges, pleas, convictions and dismissals yet?
It seems like it would make a good betting pool.
WaterGirl
@LAO: We haven’t even gotten into the discussion of whether Powell and Cheese-bro are actually cooperators.
Andrew Weissman isn’t convinced that they are full cooperators, but I wonder if that’s partially based on the difference between federal cooperators and state cooperators.
I don’t even begin to have an opinion on that one. I’m sure it’s really tough for someone like Weissman when you are used to being the person on the inside of these cases, and suddenly you don’t have the scoop, but you are still opining on the case.
Weissman seems to have a bone to pick with Merrick Garland, but I don’t know why. Is Weissman the one that some of you guys think is an arrogant ass? (my takeaway from the conversation, not sure anyone ever said those exact words.)
Barbara
@LAO: In judging their credibility the most important thing isn’t whether they were charged and then pled guilty, but whether their testimony at trial is supported by contemporaneous emails or other documentary evidence on relevant subject matter.
They didn’t “flip” in any real sense — flipping would be testifying one way or taking a formal position in some kind of setting and then changing your testimony. I don’t think they have been deposed, thought they probably have made many public statements when they were not under oath.
Sister Golden Bear
@WaterGirl: Looking forward to 10 Republicans all claiming they needed emergency root canals at the same time as the Speaker vote.
JerTBear
I listened to most of the court hearings when Powell, Chesebro, and Ellis plead guilty to crimes. Each promised to provide documentation and to speak at all trials if they are asked to do so. Whatever one things of Powell’s mental acuity, the emails and texts she provides will be difficult to refute.
I have to believe in order for any defendent to get a plea deal, they have to produce something to make it worth the prosecutor agreeing to reduce charges.
WaterGirl
@Sister Golden Bear: Or a baby boom! 10 men whose wives or children are giving birth. :-)
Suzanne
@LAO:
As part of their plea deal, they have to testify, yes? What would happen if they testified in such fashion that they didn’t spill any beans in Trump?
Punchy
Word on the street is that Emmer just quit the selection process and walked.
So….we’re moving on to Bill O’Reilly and Ice Cube as candidates?
LAO
@WaterGirl: I’m not a fan of AW based upon my personal interactions with him. He appears to be fixated on the concept that to be a true cooperator, a witness must be cooperating with both GA and federal prosecutors. That’s ridiculous.
while it’s likely that these defendants have approached Jack Smith (a guy I am a fan of based on my personal interactions with), there’s nothing to indicate whether he wants any of them as potential witnesses.
Chris Johnson
@Punchy: Wait, what? Damn, they’re fucked up over there…
scav
@Chris Johnson: The scriptwriters!
LAO
@Barbara: Absolutely, a jury can and should look at the big picture in evaluating the credibility of any witness. On this, we agree.
But, I don’t understand why you think a witness needs to have been previously under oath to be “flipped” when switching sides.
Chris Johnson
@scav: …the Aristocrats!
Tony Jay
@WaterGirl:
No it isn’t. Oh, hang on…
That’s what I call Tuesday.
JoyceH
LOL. Emmer drops out. This is the weirdest timeline!
Another Scott
@WaterGirl:
IANAL, but I don’t think that’s strictly true. She pled guilty to very specific things (particular votes being somehow fraudlent, etc.).
Someone made the point (of course I cannot quickly find it) that she is still an election denier and never said that she was wrong about the election or accepted that Biden won.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Sparkedcat
@moops:
There are four guilty pleas. Three lawyers and the bail bondsman.
HumboldtBlue
If you need a break from the real news world, here’s a dog zooming to a harmonica.
LAO
@Suzanne: well, if GA believes a cooperator failed to provide truthful testimony, prosecutors bring a motion to withdraw the sentence promise in the original agreement and seek jail time.
WaterGirl
@Punchy: I thought he would give them one chance to get to 217 and then walk. But I guess enough of them have said hard NO, so he didn’t need to do that.
So I’m back to my “7 of the Rs who want to legislate and do not want to be laughingstocks” get together and all vote PRESENT in the next formal public vote. Then on the next vote, 8 vote PRESENT. That should help the crazy 8 to see where things are going. Then 9, then 10, if necessary. Or the 8 see where things are going and say “Kevin’s not so bad.”
Anonymous At Work
LAO, et alia,
How does Jenna Ellis being from a separate “arm” of the conspiracy from Kraken Karen and Cheesy-Bro help? Kraken was gathering “proof” to get state leges/Congress to overturn certifications, Cheesy-Bro was quarterbacking fraudulent Electors plot, and now Jenna was working as Rudy’s right-hand [yes, intended] to present false statements to state leges to get them to overturn Electors prior to Jan 6th.
How helpful is that to a prosecutor to show a conspiracy? What avenues of escape are now cut-off? Attorney-client privilege falls to crime-fraud exception when the attorney pleads guilty to fraud. Does 3 separate attorneys on 3 separate avenues of attack foreclose a decent argument against RICO?
Oh, and 5 down, 2 non-lawyers from Coffee County, have plead out too. Kraken-Karen is just the name among those from Coffee County.
JaySinWA
ABC news claims Meadows has flipped for immunity in the Jan 6 case.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/chief-staff-mark-meadows-granted-immunity-tells-special/story?id=104231281
mvr
The judge just has to determine that a certain threshold admission of facts necessary for a plea of guilty has been met. They don’t look stupid just for not doing more than that.
Prosecutors are different animals. In principle they are supposed to pursue only the (so far as they know) guilty and not put on perjured evidence. On the assumption that Willis is following the rules, she won’t use perjured testimony. But she might have various reasons to take the plea so long as it gives her a legal advantage in the more important aspects of the case involving other defendants. And not all of those defendants may be Trump. Likely that involves getting her testimony against someone but it doesn’t have to.
Those who have had experience with criminal courts know that many/most prosecutors don’t always stick to the rules. Jailhouse snitches are very unreliable witnesses but prosecutors use them if they have them. Cops lie. A lot. In court. Perhaps some prosecutors are unaware of the extent of this but I’m sure they are aware of some of it. And perhaps they don’t know when they are lying so they feel OK using them even when they don’t know one way or that other.
This is why people have a right to confront and cross-examine their accusers. And quite frankly that is only a little bit of protection against lying witnesses.
I used to be a defense investigator for a criminal defense lawyer. We won many cases by proving that the officer’s testimony on some issue or another was not credible. But my boss was the most expensive defense lawyer in the state even then and even my work was billed at a high rate.
None of this is to say I don’t think Trump is guilty. In some sense we all witnessed parts of the crimes he is accused of or his confessions thereto. Nor is it to say I don’t relish each witness turning against him. But the justice system is generally biased in favor of the state, except with defendants with deep pockets (which Trump has). So I resonate with the sentiments of LOA and others that it isn’t a bad thing that a defendant, any defendant gets to challenge witnesses.
[Diatribe over :-)]
Warblewarble
Meadows going for gold in the flipping olympics.
Another Scott
[ womp, womp ]
Maybe something good that could come of this is getting more people to realize that government is serious business, that politics is serious business (it’s how we decide how to solve big problems), that competence matters more than tribalism, that both sides aren’t the same, that letting bomb-throwers represent us isn’t actually a good idea.
Yeah, I’m a dreamer. But nothing changes until it does…
Cheers,
Scott.
WaterGirl
@mvr: Great information, thanks!
UncleEbeneezer
MuellerSheWrote on the Xitter:
jonas
I presume, though, that with the testimony of key insiders, connecting the dots suddenly got a lot easier for the prosecutors (and the story they present to the jurors). Of course, as you suggest, there’s always the problem that these people can be portrayed as insane liars on the stand. Which, admittedly, they kinda have been up to this point, esp. Powell and Ellis.