A Few Honest Men

I got a chuckle reading this article today. I found it amusing since I had just had a conversation with an attorney over that precise topic a couple of days earlier. The subject being plea deals for prosecution-friendly testimony such as Rick Gates sold for use against Paul Manafort. Since this is the overt and exclusive tactic in Mueller’s stair-step indictments to cage Trump, I was curious as to its reputation.

So the question I specifically asked in that discussion was: What exactly is the probative value of purchased testimony? I meant that from a purely academic perspective, since most juries could be swayed by a talking turtle and coloring books. So its practical utility was not in question. But if, conceptually, the purpose of a trial is to endeavor toward the truth, what use are prostitute witnesses to that end?

For instance, no court outside the Ninth Circuit would presumably permit Trump-deranged billionaire Tom Steyer to pay a witness millions of dollars for perjury about Donald and Vlad copulating in a flying saucer. But surely even judges understand compensation doesn’t only take shape in green paper rectangles. Imagine if a leftist as clumsy in their contempt of Trump as Steyer were in position to pay for testimony with the most precious resource of all: years of a man’s life. Would that be any less an obvious bribe? The resounding legal answer is: yes, so much less as to be no bribe at all.

If, like me, you find that response somewhat counterintuitive, that is because neither of us understand the simple premise of Mueller’s plea deals. You see, when Mueller offered to pay Rick Gates with years of his life for testifying against Paul Manifort, that wasn’t suborning perjury since Gates was only being hired to tell the truth rather than lie. So if, for example, Manafort had handed a $100,000 check to the presiding judge while urging him to conduct a fair trial, you can imagine the shrugs all around—didn’t everyone want the trial to be fair? So what’s the problem?

I’m not really sure, but I think it would be the same problem as dramatically reducing a man’s sentence in exchange for his absolutely truthful testimony. Here’s an example of how that agreement might be negotiated.

Joe, you’re looking at hard time, my friend. 30 years quite possibly. But we may be able to help. All we’d ask of you in return is the truth about Drumpf.

Alright, I’m willing to give you that. The truth is I know of no illegal activities by him or his organization.

Well Joe, I’m sorry to hear you’re not willing to simply speak candidly on the stand. Not as sorry as your young children, I’m sure. How old will they be in 2048 anyway? I guess it won’t be so hard on your wife though. She’ll find solace with her next husband. Ahh well, take care.

Wait. I’m starting to recall several irregularities I must have previously suppressed. Yes, it’s all coming back in a rush now. I remember Trump and Putin both screaming the N-word while severing limbs during the Rwandan massacre. Would that truth be helpful?

Joe, I knew you were an honest man.

And now that I give the issue more thought, a few honest men is all Bob Mueller is looking for.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “A Few Honest Men

      • Things like this are why it blows my mind that so many intelligent people on the right still favor death penalty. I have no moral problem with killing a murderer, but people who still have enough faith in the system porter described to trust them to do so fairly is absurd.

  1. Pingback: A Few Honest Men | Reaction Times

  2. “Show me the person, I’ll show you the crime.”

    In a world where (as the book title says) each person commits three felonies a day, suborned testimony is simply the fig leaf to justify the lease payments on the microscope used to find something (usually a list of somethings) that can be returned in an indictment.

    Unless a man lives in the woods next to where Ted K built his bombs, and he never buys or sells anything whatsoever, he has surely committed some technical infraction of our Kafkaesque Federal Register legal swamp. Anyone with a law degree or who has had to pay an accountant to do his taxes surely provides a zealous prosecutor with acres of criminal wheat to harvest. All it takes is to talk to an FBI agent WITHOUT RECORDING THE INTERVIEW. Hell, even publicly proclaiming ones innocence and being interviewed by the FBI, in series, constitutes “lying to the FBI” (see Martha Stewart’s conviction.)

    We live in a Theocracy. Everything we learned about the world in which we live is either mythology or the Big Lie. Grasping this core truth is extremely difficult.

    • “Everything we learned about the world in which we live is either mythology or the Big Lie. Grasping this core truth is extremely difficult.”

      100%.
      Trying to rationalize the nonsensical is the ouroboros of the current mind. I’ve tried myself, and failed, because it can’t be rationalized. I have accepted it. I don’t have to like it, but I can’t harm myself further by trying to understand it. Clown World.

      The amount of posts and websites and podcasts and statements of those who point this fact out with figures, diagrams, and other evidence are pissing against the current wind. It simply DOES NOT MATTER. The hypocrisy shown should be enough, but it isn’t, because they don’t care, or they are too stupid to figure this fact out against their own limited views.

      Until the wind shifts–which could mean a total burning down of everything via Civil War, or mass arrests and convictions, or an immense block of rational people actually putting the screws to their corporate and media masters in one way or another, things will continue in this vein.

      • If you understand Gnosticism, you’ll understand Clown World. They act according to the faith and moral orthodoxy of Gnosticism, and from that point of view, what they do and how they act makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, that faith is a parasitical heresy.

        • I was having dinner with a friend a few years ago when we diverted the conversation into philosophy. He glowingly described his as Gnosticism. I said, “man do I know a blogger for you.”

  3. Trump correctly declared the media an enemy of the people. The title should be extended to the entire judicial branch which becomes increasingly bold and vile with each passing day.

    For Obama’s minions– like Cheryl Mills–immunity was passed out “like candy” without even pretending to be in pursuit of a potential conviction. It was just immunity for the sake of immunity and there it sits, unquestioned and unimpeded.

    It does indeed get wearisome pointing out the endless barrage of fraud, crime and corruption, but there is always the hope that a narrative will get through.

    A judge just released terrorists running a school shooter training camp.

    That ridiculous side has to be losing some allegiance (although the new adherents are running across the border in droves)

  4. Pingback: K Blog: A Few Honest Men | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  5. When there is no Rule of Law, it works BOTH ways.

    This country’s “Law Enforcement” and its “Legal” system – and their families- had better understand that. And soon.

    • This, exactly. When you accept the truth that the vermin making our laws, cherrypick the ones they wish to abide by, it becomes….. Liberating. You know, IF you have the balls to “do as thou will”.

    • They will understand in spades, Mr. Matis. All they will have to do is witness the coming meltdown in the Blue Hives. They will decide that discretion is the better part of valor. They received a sneak preview thirteen years ago when Katrina hit NOLA. And that was just a small taste. Bleib ubrig.

      • “They are organized and work together, and they have the guns and the will to use them.” True, at this time. But the crucible is coming. And in that crucible, they will in many cases be opposed by “you just have the guns.” And, that group of “you just have the guns” also have the will to use them – their restraint lies in the knowledge of what their stepping up to the plate will mean to what they hold dear – their families, their life’s work, and the future of the community they live in. Very few are – at this time – willing to sacrifice everything. But that can change in a heartbeat. Keep in mind:
        How dangerous it is, when a man has nothing left to lose, and his back is against the wall.
        Do not ever mistake kindness and restraint for weakness.
        And don’t for a moment think that the trigger pullers on the “other side” will stay on that side, when that steady paycheck, retirement, and security are gone – and their families are not safe. Their allegiance is purchased – miss a payment and it’s gone. They’re mercenary – in it for the paycheck. The “you just have the guns” folks are not, their motivation is much deeper, hence the restraint. And for the love of God, don’t think it won’t happen just because it hasn’t happened yet.
        Choose today who you will serve… as for me and mine….

      • If things ever do get THAT bad, how long do you really think that organization will last? I don’t think it would last long at all. Most cops hate the politicians they work for. Most of them aren’t rabid leftists. Leaving your family vulnerable to attack so you can try to either prevent a bunch of dindus from burning down their own neighborhoods, or enforce whatever nonsense your politicians tell you to, isn’t going to hold together long term.

        • “Most cops hate the politicians they work for. Most of them aren’t rabid leftists”

          IDGAF. You are / were part of the badge gang. An armed thug and a triggerman for the most corrupt and untouchable that have existed in a long long time. So this “I was just doing my job” doesn’t and won’t hold water. You will be held accountable for your actions as all men will one day.

          Cops DO NOT get a pass. Military, depends on many more complex factors. But police get retribution. This is one of the only points where my ‘take’ aligns heavily with the BLM scrubs. Mutual hatred of the badge gang and their Stasi like tactics.

  6. I was a juror on a federal trial many years back. Once we got into deliberation I told the other jurors that several of the witnesses were obviously testifying against their friend in exchange for leniency and, obviously, we should disregard everything they say. I got no pushback on that. Unfortunately for the defendant, his major crime was caught clearly on video, so it didn’t help him that much in the end.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s