Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please do not confuse the word "proof" with the word "evidence". Cohen's guilty plea is evidence that Cohen committed crimes. An independent finding of guilt by a jury (better, multiple juries) of fellow citizens usually represents a higher evidentiary standard than a guilty plea under the cloud of a potential cooperation agreement.

I'll entertain continuing with you if you can cite some statistics or facts to back that up and show it is not just some bullshit thing you made up.

There is no reason I can see to say that someone denying their guilt in a trial and as they go to jail is more likely to be IN FACT guilty than someone who admits their crimes. Quite the opposite and as you cited above we have enough examples of CONVICTED people being vindicated later to suggest otherwise.

I appreciate your skepticism, though I think you could tone down the vitriol a bit.

Of course, there are no statistics that can prove your or my view on this matter. It is my perception, however, that 100% of those experienced in criminal law agree with me on this issue. For example, please consider these relevant excerpts from a famous Washington University Law Review Article, The Trial Judge's Satisfaction as to the Factual Basis of Guilty Pleas. I have underlined for you the particularly relevant sentences.


An estimated ninety per cent of criminal convictions in state and federal courts are based on guilty pleas. This single fact demonstrates the dominant role of the guilty plea process in the administration of criminal justice and emphasizes the importance of insuring the accuracy of such pleas. Defendants who plead not guilty and stand trial are protected by a multitude of safeguards designed to avoid conviction of the innocent. Modem procedures for accepting guilty pleas should also be designed to prevent
the conviction of innocent defendants; however, the guilty plea process is characterized by less elaborate procedures which often ignore the issue of guilt or innocence
.


...

One method of preventing false pleas is judicial inquiry into the facts supporting the charge. Professor Newman, in his definitive study of adjudication by plea of guilty, has observed that some trial judges do make a factual inquiry before finally accepting guilty pleas, although those who do so appear to be in the minority. Some procedures aimed primarily at accomplishing other goals indirectly result in such examinations; for example, a presentence investigation may turn up facts which cast doubt on the defendant's guilt. However, with few exceptions, judges at most need inquire only into the voluntariness of guilty pleas and assure themselves that the pleas were made with understanding of the possible consequences."


https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/c...tpsredir=1&article=3094&context=law_lawreview
--------------------
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your skepticism, though I think you could tone down the vitriol a bit.

Of course, there are no statistics that can prove your or my view on this matter. It is my perception, however, that 100% of those experienced in criminal law agree with me on this issue. For example, please consider these relevant excerpts from a famous Washington University Law Review Article, The Trial Judge's Satisfaction as to the Factual Basis of Guilty Pleas. I have underlined for you the particularly important sentences.


An estimated ninety per cent of criminal convictions in state and federal courts are based on guilty pleas. This single fact demonstrates the dominant role of the guilty plea process in the administration of criminal justice and emphasizes the importance of insuring the accuracy of such pleas. Defendants who plead not guilty and stand trial are protected by a multitude of safeguards designed to avoid conviction of the innocent. Modem procedures for accepting guilty pleas should also be designed to prevent
the conviction of innocent defendants; however, the guilty plea process is characterized by less elaborate procedures which often ignore the issue of guilt or innocence
.


...

One method of preventing false pleas is judicial inquiry into the facts supporting the charge. Professor Newman, in his definitive study of adjudication by plea of guilty, has observed that some trial judges do make a factual inquiry before finally accepting guilty pleas, although those who do so appear to be in the minority. Some procedures aimed primarily at accomplishing other goals indirectly result in such examinations; for example, a presentence investigation may turn up facts which cast doubt on the defendant's guilt. However, with few exceptions, judges at most need inquire only into the voluntariness of guilty pleas and assure themselves that the pleas were made with understanding of the possible consequences."


https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/c...tpsredir=1&article=3094&context=law_lawreview
--------------------
So you are admitting this is your usual BS where you make statements as if fact that are not facts.

We know abuses happen in the legal system all the time and that innocent people proclaiming their innocent to the very end are convicted often. YOu have cited such an example upthread when it served you to try and show 'convictions =/= guilt".

So this is just your usual equivocation bullshit. When someone says Cohen plead guilty you say 'plea's of guilty are not as good as convictions because of abuse'. When someone points out a Trump =/=crony was convicted you say 'Convictions =/= guilt" and point to someone wrongly convicted.

So in the end you have drawn your lines and your position is clear and that is whether all Trump cronies plead guilty OR are convicted you will accept nothing as proof of real guilt because 'exceptions'. So what is the point in discussing anything with you with regards to alleged crimes when you have already set your position to ignore and spin any convictions.

I love debate but when faced with a true troll who has no goal other than spin the best thing we can do in this community is ignore the troll so that is what I will do and I suggest others not engage you either.
 
So you are admitting this is your usual BS where you make statements as if fact that are not facts.

No sir. First, I reject the premise that my posts are "BS". Second, it is common knowledge among lawyers and even ordinary citizens that the accused accept plea bargains to avoid further prosecution and likely jail time. Again, the Washington University Law review article I posted testifies to this fact.

YOu have cited such an example upthread when it served you to try and show 'convictions =/= guilt"

Yes sir, and I am quite sure that you also accept this basic premise. Any thinking man should.

When someone says Cohen plead guilty you say 'plea's of guilty are not as good as convictions because of abuse'.

Dear sir, if my memory serves me correctly, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges. I have repeatedly expressed confidence that Mr. Cohen did in fact commit six of those eight offenses. My belief is that Mr. Cohen has been failing to pay his income taxes for decades and knew that signing a plea agreement was his best available option for avoiding jail time.

When someone points out a Trump =/=crony was convicted you say 'Convictions =/= guilt" and point to someone wrongly convicted.

No sir, this is not true. For example, I believe that Manafort is in fact guilty on at least some of the charges to which he was found guilty.

So in the end you have drawn your lines and your position is clear and that is whether all Trump cronies plead guilty OR are convicted you will accept nothing as proof of real guilt because 'exceptions'.

No sir. See the previous comment.

So what is the point in discussing anything with you with regards to alleged crimes when you have already set your position to ignore and spin any convictions.

Sir, you should be well aware at this point that I accept 87.5% (14 of 16) of the convictions of Cohen and Manafort. Please do not distort my words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top