Liberal Forum

A way for Government to get someone to lie to get a false conviction. It's fun and games now for Democrats. But what happens when it's done to them.

This is a long standing legal maneuver... nothing new to report.

Doesn't make it right.

PhiloBeddo » 07 Sep 2023, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 12:16 pm

Doesn't make it right.

Imagine that you have a witness in a murder investigation who can give you the information that you need but they have some baggage.... In some cases, this is the one and only way that you will get a conviction. So would you still contend its not right?

It's a slippery slope. It's carte blanch to lie.

PhiloBeddo » 07 Sep 2023, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 12:21 pm

It's a slippery slope. It's carte blanch to lie.

But there are times when it is necessary and/or warranted. Of course, the folks on the losing side will never think that way. 

Grant immunity to the addict so you can arrest and remove the pusher.
It makes sense to me, if used with intelligence and discretion.

Most people with a free pass to lie and cover their ***, WILL.

PhiloBeddo » 07 Sep 2023, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 12:08 pm

A way for Government to get someone to lie to get a false conviction. It's fun and games now for Democrats. But what happens when it's done to them.

Immunity is essential to break up a racketeering mob.

The government has to be careful to make double sure of two things:

1. They are credible 

2.  They are not likely to reoffend.

The government starts at the bottom.

Eventually a high ranked member flips.

—-

• Rudy Giuliani keeps saying he's broke and can't pay legal bills.
• But he's scrupulously avoided actually showing financial statements in court.
• He blames an earlier FBI raid for disorganizing his documents — an excuse blasted by a federal judge.

https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-gi ... 2023-9?ampThere are signs that Giuliani is indeed bleeding financially.In early August, he put up his Manhattan apartment for sale. If he finds a buyer, he can spare himself the $10,719 monthly maintenance fee and use the funds from its $6.5 million asking price toward legal bills.Giuliani is a defendant in several civil lawsuits. In some of them — like one brought by a woman accusing him of sexual misconduct and another from a grocery store worker who claims the ex-mayor had him wrongly arrested — he's partially representing himself instead of hiring a large legal team.His prestigious resume — once the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, New York City mayor, and president's personal lawyer — has become a measure of how far he has fallen. Because of his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, he is on the verge of losing his ability to practice law and is under criminal indictment in Georgia, a serious and embarrassing charge that he will be sure to rack up more bills defending. Former President Donald Trump has announced a $100,000-per-plate fundraising event to help pay his legal tab.

Bruce » 07 Sep 2023, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 12:49 pm

Immunity is essential to break up a racketeering mob.

The government has to be careful to make double sure of two things:

1. They are credible 

2.  They are not likely to reoffend.

The government starts at the bottom.

Eventually a high ranked member flips.

—-

• Rudy Giuliani keeps saying he's broke and can't pay legal bills.
• But he's scrupulously avoided actually showing financial statements in court.
• He blames an earlier FBI raid for disorganizing his documents — an excuse blasted by a federal judge.

https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-gi ... 2023-9?amp

Give democrats enough rope ... they will hang themselves

FJB » 07 Sep 2023, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 12:51 pm

Give democrats enough rope ... they will hang themselves

I doubt even one of the 18 others will refuse a plea deal in Georgia.

Except maybe Sidney Powell has an excellent insanity defense.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55090145

Nov 28 2020 BBC

The  conspiracy theorists Ms  Powell is closely followed by supporters of the QAnon conspiracy theory, who believe President Trump is secretly battling a deep state cabal of Satan-worshipping paedophiles in the Democratic Party, media, business and Hollywood.

Many in the movement remain convinced that President Trump will be inaugurated for a second term on 20 January, even though he lost the election. From appearing on well-known QAnon-related online shows, to engaging with and retweeting QAnon influencers or using QAnon phrases in her tweets, Ms Powell has cemented her position as a favourite among its adherents.
 

PhiloBeddo » 07 Sep 2023, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 12:30 pm

Most people with a free pass to lie and cover their ***, WILL.

That rules out Sidney Powell. She’s insane.

But Fani Willis will work up from the bottom.

To get a deal they must have corroborating evidence they aren’t just wanting a get out of jail EARLY card.

 

Bruce » 07 Sep 2023, 12:55 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 12:55 pm

I doubt even one of the 18 others will refuse a plea deal in Georgia.

Except maybe Sidney Powell has an excellent insanity defense.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55090145

Nov 28 2020 BBC

The  conspiracy theorists Ms  Powell is closely followed by supporters of the QAnon conspiracy theory, who believe President Trump is secretly battling a deep state cabal of Satan-worshipping paedophiles in the Democratic Party, media, business and Hollywood.

Many in the movement remain convinced that President Trump will be inaugurated for a second term on 20 January, even though he lost the election. From appearing on well-known QAnon-related online shows, to engaging with and retweeting QAnon influencers or using QAnon phrases in her tweets, Ms Powell has cemented her position as a favourite among its adherents.

Fani  the soros cocksucker will go down

impartialobserver » 07 Sep 2023, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 12:25 pm

But there are times when it is necessary and/or warranted. Of course, the folks on the losing side will never think that way.

So... blackmailing someone into lying to convict an innocent person is sometimes necessary and/or warranted?

You're gonna have to explain that one bud.

 

 

RedheadedStranger » 07 Sep 2023, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 1:07 pm

So... blackmailing someone into lying to convict an innocent person is sometimes necessary and/or warranted?

You're gonna have to explain that one bud.

Well, first we have to get past this "innocent person" assumption. If you knew that a person had killed someone (just a random example) but the only witness that could corroborate the story had baggage.. what are you going to do? In this example.. what would you do if you were the prosecutor? 

impartialobserver » 07 Sep 2023, 1:12 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 1:12 pm

Well, first we have to get past this "innocent person" assumption. If you knew that a person had killed someone (just a random example) but the only witness that could corroborate the story had baggage.. what are you going to do? In this example.. what would you do if you were the prosecutor?

There is no "getting past" the presumption of innocence, as this is what our legal system is supposedly founded on... though I question that it still is these days.

The acceptance of a less than credible "witness" lying their *** off on the stand to save their own asses should never be "acceptable or necessary" EVER.

Our system is SUPPOSED to be based on the philosophy that a guilty man should go free before an innocent man to prison... and NOT the philosophy that a shady witness being given immunity to lie under oath in order to pacify the prosecution is necessary and/or acceptable.

 
 

RedheadedStranger » 07 Sep 2023, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 1:25 pm

There is no "getting past" the presumption of innocence, as this is what our legal system is supposedly founded on... though I question that it still is these days.

The acceptance of a less than credible "witness" lying their *** off on the stand to save their own asses should never be "acceptable or necessary" EVER.

Our system is SUPPOSED to be based on the philosophy that a guilty man should go free before an innocent man to prison... and NOT the philosophy that a shady witness being given immunity to lie under oath in order to pacify the prosecution is necessary and/or acceptable.

Your assumption that they are lying is another problem. Lets assume that they are not... then what do you do? You only have one chance to nail someone.. so you would just let the murderer go? Interesting.

impartialobserver » 07 Sep 2023, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 1:26 pm

Your assumption that they are lying is another problem. Lets assume that they are not... then what do you do? You only have one chance to nail someone.. so you would just let the murderer go? Interesting.

Yes.

If it were a choice between coercing a witness to lie under oath to get a conviction or allowing a guilty man to walk, then the guilty man should walk.

I think it's interesting that you feel the opposite.


 

If you are trying to silence your opponent in and election, making up lies is the Dem way. Paying or blackmailing people to lie is their playbook.

Is making up collusion lies and getting intel officials to lie for you and the Media classify as election interference.