Let's do this!!!
Some people plead guilty to prevent lawfare and spending all their resources against lawyers that have an unlimited supply of taxpayer money. That's why the FEDS have such a high conviction rate. It not always that their case is airtight, it's people don't have the money/resources to fight them.Thats true but I think everything ended up being thrown out when the case was ended. It was a scam by Fani and the commie dems anyway and everyone knows it.
Then Trump must hang right? We have actual concrete proof of his multiple attempts to cheat as opposed to the imaginary Democratic fraud you've been fooled into believing, yet you give him a total pass. So can you state for the record that you agree we should put him on trial?IMO cheating in elections should be right up there with murder and other heinous crimes. It's a crime against all of us.

LMAO, Hambone, they were actually guilty!Some people plead guilty to prevent lawfare and spending all their resources against lawyers that have an unlimited supply of taxpayer money. That's why the FEDS have such a high conviction rate. It not always that their case is airtight, it's people don't have the money/resources to fight them.

Then Tina Peters should remain in jail for quite a while, and Sidney Powell should have been imprisoned, right?IMO cheating in elections should be right up there with murder and other heinous crimes. It's a crime against all of us.
This just goes to show you how stupid and uninformed you are. Neither one of them was ever charged for cheating in an election.Then Tina Peters should remain in jail for quite a while, and Sidney Powell should have been imprisoned, right?
dpic, this really makes the case against adding any voting limits to those we have. And what better or more knowledgeable person to announce that this is a fascist takeover of our democracy.
Well, this post will probably elicit a hail of curse words and other invective from you but ces't la vie., I find it entertaining.This just goes to show you how stupid and uninformed you are. Neither one of them was ever charged for cheating in an election.
Some people plead guilty to prevent lawfare and spending all their resources against lawyers that have an unlimited supply of taxpayer money. That's why the FEDS have such a high conviction rate. It not always that their case is airtight, it's people don't have the money/resources to fight them.
Hailstorm of cursing incoming ...We're currently not being protected from our own government, who is doing the same things you fought against. Where's your allegiance now?
I don't have this experience with government, but I can tell you that occurs in industry. Companies have multitudes of lawyers on their payrolls, plaintiffs have to pay by the hour. Cost to proceed might exceed any potential recoveries and vice versa...company might determine its cheaper to settle than to proceed..so they settle and move onoh boy. I would say something insulting to you right now, but I actually feel sorry for you. You gotta wake up every day and be you.
I don't have this experience with government, but I can tell you that occurs in industry. Companies have multitudes of lawyers on their payrolls, plaintiffs have to pay by the hour. Cost to proceed might exceed any potential recoveries and vice versa...company might determine its cheaper to settle than to proceed..so they settle and move on
you're right. I guess though it's a risk reward for the defendant. Is it worth it to get a slap on the risk by pleading guilty, or spend your money to hire and pay lawyers when your chance of beating the charge is a low percentage.When a company settles a lawsuit, they're not admitting guilt. Very, very different than someone saying they're guilty of committing a crime because they don't want to pay for lawyers. This is just a foolish, foolish argument to make.
“Slap on the risk”??you're right. I guess though it's a risk reward for the defendant. Is it worth it to get a slap on the risk by pleading guilty, or spend your money to hire and pay lawyers when your chance of beating the charge is a low percentage.
I imagine some people have taken the slap and saved their money and others haven't . Depends on the situation I assume.
What's your point? I shouldn't share the opinions of people on the other side of the aisle, even if they were beaten within an inch of their life over election fraud conspiracies? I'd be happy to add the thoughts of people with higher credentials if you'd like. I have millions to pick from...
Surely you're not trying to trying to imply these cases may not be legitimate so they settled, are you? C'mon Ned, you know better than that.I don't have this experience with government, but I can tell you that occurs in industry. Companies have multitudes of lawyers on their payrolls, plaintiffs have to pay by the hour. Cost to proceed might exceed any potential recoveries and vice versa...company might determine its cheaper to settle than to proceed..so they settle and move on
no, my point was that just because someone has an opinion, it's not necessarily right.What's your point? I shouldn't share the opinions of people on the other side of the aisle, even if they were beaten within an inch of their life over election fraud conspiracies? I'd be happy to add the thoughts of people with higher credentials if you'd like. I have millions to pick from...
What's your point? I shouldn't share the opinions of people on the other side of the aisle, even if they were beaten within an inch of their life over election fraud conspiracies? I'd be happy to add the thoughts of people with higher credentials if you'd like. I have millions to pick from...
cases might be legitimate, plaintiff likely would not file if they didn't feel they had a case. I'm suggesting, because I've been on the decision side, that companies weight cost/benefit to spending hours and hours of lawyer's and management time, court costs etc against cost of a potential settlement, and decide to settle as opposed to continuing. I'd submit it happens more often than you might imagine.Surely you're not trying to trying to imply these cases may not be legitimate so they settled, are you? C'mon Ned, you know better than that.
You actually think you can insult me. How stupid are you? I've got everything I need.oh boy. I would say something insulting to you right now, but I actually feel sorry for you. You gotta wake up every day and be you.
I think we all learned from the wizard of oz that that statement is patently untrue.You actually think you can insult me. How stupid are you? I've got everything I need.