- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Clinesmith hearing currently occurring: pleading guilty
Posted on 8/19/20 at 1:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 8/19/20 at 1:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Catherine Herridge adds, that there was apparently a sidebar and mute when Clinesmith admitted altering the email, but denied knowing it was false:
Catherine Herridge Tweet
Herridge is legit and I believe her about most things. I like how she included the relevant detail about sidebar otherwise I’m missing from the first dude’s account HHTM found.
Random dude underneath Catherine says:
I am not a criminal atty, but this would seem to make sense. I cannot imagine that the judicial denial of knowledge of falsity wasn’t something that was was not negotiated in advance. There’s just no way everything that happened wasn’t orchestrated by the
attys up front.
Clinesmith is singing like a freaking bird right now.
quote:
Confusing moment: Clinesmith + attorneys hit mute, sidebar discussion, during key line of questioning. Clinesmith admitted he intentionally altered CIA email, adding Page was not a CIA source, but also told court he apparently believed info was true at the time.
Catherine Herridge Tweet
Herridge is legit and I believe her about most things. I like how she included the relevant detail about sidebar otherwise I’m missing from the first dude’s account HHTM found.
Random dude underneath Catherine says:
quote:
Clinesmith is entering what is known as an "Alford plea." He is denying he intentionally lied, though the statement was false, in order to take advantage of the plea agreement. Quite common. In this case, with the plea, he avoids a charge of evidence tampering (20 years).
I am not a criminal atty, but this would seem to make sense. I cannot imagine that the judicial denial of knowledge of falsity wasn’t something that was was not negotiated in advance. There’s just no way everything that happened wasn’t orchestrated by the
attys up front.
Clinesmith is singing like a freaking bird right now.
0
Posted on 8/19/20 at 1:13 pm to KCT
quote:
Don't forget. The sentencing guideline can be adjusted.
That's right, once the plea has been entered, and there is an expectation of cooperation, to provide additional info, you damn well better make good on your promise, before sentencing.
Posted on 8/19/20 at 1:13 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Just let me say this, past experience has proven that once you plead guilty/confess, you are at the mercy of the police/DA...never trust them re: any promises they make.
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:08 pm to auggie
quote:
Sentencing is Dec.10. He has agreed to cooperate. We'll know Dec. 10 if he actually did.
I seriously doubt they schedule sentencing when they haven’t even brought charges on a bigger fish. That’s my point. The fact that this is scheduled, tells me it’s a dead end, and the “cooperation”, is just to secure a plea and avoid trial.
Maybe a poli lawyer can confirm.
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:11 pm to auggie
quote:
That's right, once the plea has been entered, and there is an expectation of cooperation, to provide additional info, you damn well better make good on your promise, before sentencing.
Typically sentencing isn't scheduled until cooperation is complete. Saw this on a few occasions in SCO investigation.
Is there a cooperation agreement? Anyone seen it? What is there to cooperate about?
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:13 pm to Decatur
quote:
What is there to cooperate about?
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:14 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Good guys are officially on the scoreboard.
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:14 pm to Decatur
quote:
Typically sentencing isn't scheduled until cooperation is complete. Saw this on a few occasions in SCO investigation. Is there a cooperation agreement? Anyone seen it? What is there to cooperate about?
Didn’t the original Flynn plea have some language about cooperation with the SCO? I would assume that if (and that’s a big if) Clinesmith did get this plea agreement based on cooperation that would be explicitly stated.
But I don’t do that fancy lawyerin so what do I know
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:21 pm to jamboybarry
quote:
Didn’t the original Flynn plea have some language about cooperation with the SCO?
Yep, in the plea agreement.
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:23 pm to Decatur
From the OP - The Dream is over.
quote:
Clinesmith plea agreement: government will not prosecute Clinesmith for any other conduct stated in the statement of offense (not yet public.)
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:37 pm to Wednesday
quote:
From the OP - The Dream is over.
Could still mean he’s cooperating based on not getting strung up on the evidence tampering charge. But I think we would have seen/heard some statement from the Governmwnt if he was cooperating by now.
Coup plotters: 3
Patriots: .25
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:43 pm to jamboybarry
I am reminded of Wolfe
quote:Who or what did Wolfe give up to get this plea deal? Wolfe leaked classified information.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions was recused. As admitted in his June 2nd testimony Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was providing no special counsel oversight, and the Mueller team was essentially controlling all DOJ activity. That was when the DOJ made a decision not to prosecute Wolfe for leaking classified information. DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu signed-off on a plea deal where Wolfe plead guilty to only a single count of lying to the FBI.
If the DOJ had pursued the case against Wolfe for leaking the FISA application, everything would have been different. The American electorate would have seen evidence of what was taking place in the background effort to remove President Trump; and we would be in an entirely different place today if that prosecution or trial had taken place.
LINK
This post was edited on 8/19/20 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 8/19/20 at 2:49 pm to jamboybarry
quote:
This should be an abject lesson in why readers should NOT TRUST ANDREW WEISSMAN on anything. Weissmann has been all over Twitter making legally INACCURATE statements about what Clinesmith would need to admit for a guilty plea to be valid to the charge as filed by Durham. Weissmann has repeatedly stated that the substance of the email must be false — in other words, he has claimed that the law requires proof that Carter Page was a source of information for the CIA, which would be contrary to the substance of the email as altered by Clinesmith after he inserted the four words “is not a source” in reference to that issue.
That is NOT THE LAW on a “false writings” charge, Weissman knows that is not the law, so Weissmann’s repeated claims on Twitter that such evidence is necessary tells you everything you need to know about the ethics of Andrew Weissman.
He’s the same guy who was reversed 9-0 by the Supreme Court after he convinced a federal judge to instruct the jury in the prosecution of Big 5 accounting firm Arthur Anderson that they could convict the company of “obstruction of justice” even if no one in Arthur Anderson had any reason to believe that following an established company policy was wrong.
Posted on 8/19/20 at 7:57 pm to Wednesday
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News