That’s why I’ve never been persuaded by the argument that the upside of a pardon would be M no longer has a 5th and could be compelled to testify. Presumably he’d lie or refuse, and if necessary Trump could just pardon him again.
-
-
Replying to @RDEliason @jedshug and
So why did Manafort take this plea deal? He lost $16M in the plea deal w/o much difference in sentence.
2 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @RDEliason and
He took the deal to aim for a sentence of a year or two if his cooperation is really significant. It’s all about his cooperation, not the statutory maximum or guidelines sentence.
3 replies 4 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @danielsgoldman @emptywheel and
Cooperation is key - but even if he gets no credit at all for cooperating the plea shaves 7-10 years off his sentence, because the statutory max of 5 years for each conspiracy count trumps the guidelines. (no pun intended)
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @RDEliason @danielsgoldman and
No. It doesn't. You are treating him as a normal defendant, not someone who had been promised a pardon. We know he was promised a pardon. His time in prison was going to be 6 years, max, assuming pardon.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @danielsgoldman and
I’m dealing in the facts, not speculation. But would you want to wager your freedom on the promise of a pardon from someone as erratic as Trump?
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @RDEliason @danielsgoldman and
Ok. What "facts" get you to a point where a well-lawyered defendant doesn't plead before the EDVA trial? Again, nothing you're arguing here accounts for who you're dealing with. You're imagining some invented character that didn't do what Manafort did in the last year.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @danielsgoldman and
No idea why he didn't plead earlier, he certainly could have gotten a better deal. But the fact is he didn't, and now apparently has decided to cut his losses. If you're so certain he has been guaranteed a pardon, then he would not have pleaded now either.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @RDEliason @danielsgoldman and
I've posted this several times in this thread. It explains what I believe, which you might refer to, rather than misstating what I'm arguing. https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/09/14/the-objection-that-made-muellers-case/ … The fact remains that your explanation misstates the known factors.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @danielsgoldman and
I've read it, and I believe you are mistaken about what Manafort was facing in DC. The plea deal actually cut his exposure almost in half, even if he gets no credit at all for cooperation. But I think we are spinning our wheels at this point - have a good evening.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Fair enough. I'm not arguing Manafort was wrong to take the plea, just that no argument about why he did that looks only at those sentencing guidelines provides a full explanation for his choices.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @RDEliason and
I will go with
@RDEliason fact-based analysis vs.@emptywheel speculation designed to fit her long-running (but, in many instances, unsubstantiated) theories. Let's stick to the facts. Or else we have gone down Trump's rabbit hole.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alegalnerd @RDEliason and
Your argument is that Manafort didn't go 10 months before he started considering a plea? Because the facts I'm focused on are known, past events, not (well educated) speculation about how a trial will likely come out.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.