Both very publicly and very quickly in MHO.
Six month’s later and no one would have said “Boo”. “After careful consideration of my previous court submission, I’ve reevaluated and think I’m innocent.” Reasonable.
The day after pleading guilty and telling the press you lied in court? Very different.
WW
1 Like
WorldWatcher:
Both very publicly and very quickly in MHO.
Six month’s later and no one would have said “Boo”. “After careful consideration of my previous court submission, I’ve reevaluated and think I’m innocent.” Reasonable.
The day after pleading guilty and telling the press you lied in court? Very different.
WW
To be honest, he just had to wait until the judge issued an ultimate disposition.
WuWei
February 4, 2023, 3:37pm
24
Fee fees.
It is irrelevant. Is repeating the stipulation of facts outside the courtroom a requirement? No, it is not.
4 Likes
WuWei
February 4, 2023, 3:38pm
25
That would have been the smart move. Of course they aren’t smart.
Adams’ charges:
Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds without Lawful Authority
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds
Obstruction of an Official Proceeding
Pretty standard and straight forward charges for these guys. I think this is simply a case of stupid criminal is gonna stupid. To hell with him.
1 Like
Of course it’s relevant - to the credibility of his sworn testimony.
1 Like
WuWei
February 4, 2023, 3:45pm
28
No, it absolutely is not. The default is truth under oath, lying to the media.
2 Likes
No, this is not the “default.” At least not in a courtroom.
WuWei
February 4, 2023, 3:51pm
30
Yes, it absolutely is. Hence the reason for the oath.
2 Likes
In a bench trial, the judge sits as the finder of fact. Judging the credibility of the testimony before him is just as much his responsibility as it is the jury’s, in a jury trial.
If he testifies under oath saying one thing, and then 10 minutes later, says something different to a reporter outside, the judge is 100% within his authority to demand an explanation.
WuWei
February 4, 2023, 4:14pm
32
Which he did. Under oath. Interviews with reports are not “facts.” And neither are judge fee fees.
3 Likes
alford and nolo are not the same thing. close, but not the same. i know this, and i’m not a “lawyer”
1 Like
WuWei
February 4, 2023, 4:17pm
34
Which is not the same as wanting to plead guilty.
For the purposes of this conversation, they’re functionally the same.
Sworn testimony is evidence, not fact. Words spoken to a reporter can be evidence, too.
“Fact” is a determination.
Safiel
February 4, 2023, 4:30pm
37
No problem with this.
Retard defendant should have kept his stupid trap shut at least until final disposition and sentencing, which was scheduled for June or July I believe.
He did not.
So he will rightfully take the consequences.
1 Like
These Americans apparently have not yet figured out how to be politically prosecuted / persecuted at the hands of the deep state.
3 Likes
TheDoctorIsIn:
If a defendant wants to plead guilty, but also publically maintain his innocence, he needs to make an Alford plea (otherwise known as nolo contendre ). It’s a different plea altogether - rather that stipulating to guilt, an Alford plea stipulates that the defendant is choosing not to contest the charges.
one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same