Justice Dept doesn't bring cases they cant win

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Some lovely made up facts there T.A.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...ederal-criminal-cases-were-acquitted-in-2022/
The Feds win 82% of the cases that go to trial.
Claiming that the reason 8% of indictments are dismissed is because of prosecutorial overreach or malfeasance is a baseless claim. For all we know the 8% could have been dismissed because the person turned state's evidence against someone else. The dismissals could also include dismissal of felonies when someone pleads guilty to a lesser crime.

When going to trial the first thing the feds want is a jury trial. Juries are more likely to convict compared to judges

https://www.arensteinlaw.com/blog/2021/02/the-growing-odds-of-a-conviction-in-federal-court/
Click to expand...

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Attempt to use scalar as a ratio. Failure to declare and justify variance range. Failure to use unbiased published data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Attempt to use probability mathematics to predict. Attempt to use statistical mathematics to predict.
Logic errors: False authority fallacy. Argument from randU fallacies. Attempted proof by probability. Redefinition fallacy (dismissal<->plea, dismissal<->redirection, fact<->truth,proof). Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Legal errors: There is no redirection of guilt in law.
 
QP! said:
What is fantastic is that the bulk of defenses Trump wants to present in court will require him testify or those defenses cannot be put forth by his lawyer.

All the talk of 'what Trump believed', and that he was 'only following certain lawyers guidance' (Kraken, Rudy and Eastman) and he 'believed them and not the other lawyers' (Barr, Cipollone. etc) can only be presented if Trump takes the stand and establishes that is what he believed.

And since Trump will never take the stand many of the main defenses he will want to use will be denied them.
Click to expand...

Still trying to discard Title 44 and the Constitution of the United States, ain't ya?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, you take a plea often times to avoid bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
Bankruptcy does not discharge legal costs or penalties.
T. A. Gardner said:
Many people rely on a public pretender... err, defender, who gets paid by the case so they want it over asap to get paid. They often don't have their client's best interests in mind. They will often quit a case where the defendant insists on a trial rather than a plea deal because they know they'll lose money on it.
Click to expand...
To do so is a violation of their contract.
T. A. Gardner said:
Civil suits are a bit different. Those are ALL about costs. FOX took the deal because it was cheaper than the alternatives. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Yup.
T. A. Gardner said:
Trump won't deal. He has a history of grinding his opponents down. I would expect him to go to the mat, and make things as expensive as he can for the prosecution. The prosecution will be under pressure from their management and budget people to make a crappy deal and get out of the case.
Click to expand...
The Feds really are not in any position to make ANY crappy deal. One, Trump won't go for it. Two, the prosecution has ALREADY committed several infractions of court rules sufficient to get their case thrown out on that basis with prejudice. Third, the Oligarchy would roast the prosecution alive if they made ANY deal.
T. A. Gardner said:
The feds are even less likely to want a trial than state prosecutors. One trial that is grossly expensive, and one loss and your career as a US attorney is over and done.
Click to expand...
Unless you are Jack Smith, it seems!
T. A. Gardner said:
The prosecution won't want that in the least. I'd say prosecutors in the Trump case were pressured from politics above to even push the case.
Click to expand...
I don't think you quite understand that this is not about saving money or even reputations.
This is about unmitigated hate of Donald Trump. They really don't care how much it costs, or the reputation of the prosecutor at all.
 
floridafan said:
So you lied and cant supply a link, it was expected. Now if you hang your hopes on a single case, You may sleep better, but trump is still going to lose. The evidence will be overwhelming.
Click to expand...

Illiteracy: Missing apostrophe. Capitalization after a comma. Failure to capitalize proper noun.
Logic errors: Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy. Void argument fallacy. Pivot fallacy. Attempted proof by pivot. Attempted proof by negation.
 
floridafan said:
Former FBI assistant director for counter-intelligence Frank Figliuzzi revealed that the success rate in convictions in trials brought by the Justice Department is exceedingly high and there's a reason for it – they don't bring cases they can't win.

, Figliuzzi also explained that in federal criminal cases, 90 percent of the time, a defendant pleads guilty.

"I don't mean for anyone to infer that I think Donald Trump's going to plead guilty," he told Nicolle Wallace. "Rather, I say that to emphasize the strength of a federal criminal prosecution.

"The seriousness of the charges that get brought, and the strength of the evidence when you have agencies like FBI and others pulling out all their tools in their toolkit from informants, cooperating witnesses, surveillance coverage, wiretaps, paper analysis, you name it. The federal government brings it to the table, which is why cases are so strong."

He noted that what he means by all of those details is "Jack Smith would not be bringing this case, and it looks like it's imminent, unless he had it nailed down solid with evidence. The charges will not be light or fringe-like, and the evidence will be overwhelming because that's what we see, generally speaking, in all federal cases."
Click to expand...

Agreed they wouldn't prosecute unless they believed they had a winner.

There's a reason why Trump is so nervous about this. He's going to be a lot poorer in two years. LOL
 
Into the Night said:
Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Attempt to use scalar as a ratio. Failure to declare and justify variance range. Failure to use unbiased published data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Attempt to use probability mathematics to predict. Attempt to use statistical mathematics to predict.
Logic errors: False authority fallacy. Argument from randU fallacies. Attempted proof by probability. Redefinition fallacy (dismissal<->plea, dismissal<->redirection, fact<->truth,proof). Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Legal errors: There is no redirection of guilt in law.
Click to expand...

Fallacy fallacy.
The fallacy fallacy occurs every time Into the Night claims someone else is using a fallacy. He does this in order to avoid the topic and to try to make himself looks smarter than he actually is.
Anyone watching this thread can see how often he uses this fallacy. Just search this page for the word "fallacy" and see how many times Into the Night uses the word while not explaining how the fallacy occurred or addressing the topic.
 
floridafan said:
So you lied and cant supply a link, it was expected. Now if you hang your hopes on a single case, You may sleep better, but trump is still going to lose. The evidence will be overwhelming.
Click to expand...

Read what you wrote. Then read what I wrote. Then think for a moment before you post.

...


Durham brought two cases that he clearly couldn't win.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Fallacy fallacy.
The fallacy fallacy occurs every time Into the Night claims someone else is using a fallacy. He does this in order to avoid the topic and to try to make himself looks smarter than he actually is.
Anyone watching this thread can see how often he uses this fallacy. Just search this page for the word "fallacy" and see how many times Into the Night uses the word while not explaining how the fallacy occurred or addressing the topic.
Click to expand...

Redefinition fallacy. Mockery. Pivot fallacy.
 
Barr spoke on Fox Sunday explaining why Trump is his own worst enemy.
Barr sold his judicial soul to become AG and he Approved of crazy Trump witch hunts. Trump is the problem. He simply has no respect for the law and thinks he is entitled to do what he wants.
 
Into the Night said:
Redefinition fallacy. Mockery. Pivot fallacy.
Click to expand...

Fallacy fallacy.
The fallacy fallacy occurs every time Into the Night claims someone else is using a fallacy but doesn't explain how it is a fallacy. He does this to try to make himself looks smarter than he actually is.

Anyone watching this thread can see how often he uses this fallacy. Just search this page for the word "fallacy" and see how many times Into the Night uses the word while not explaining how the fallacy occurred or addressing the topic.
What is even more hilarious is when Into the Night accuses someone else of using the fallacy fallacy and uses the definition I use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top