Did the DoJ issue agreements to not prosecute the trump clan (similar to bill cosby's deal)?

[getagrip_already]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is why none of the clan are being federally targeted.

Did Barr have his prosecutors issue agreements to not prosecute? How would we know?

Sickening thought.....

[at140]

1. Very problematic to prosecute any ex-president

Presidents get full access to all intelligence information.
They know where every body is buried.

[secondwind]

2. Apparently they are going for the bigger fish. The company

At least, for now. Probably a lot more will be coming down the pike….,

[getagrip_already]

4. that is state - I'm referring to federal prosecutions....

And not just trump, but his cabinet, family, and congressional allies. People like rudy. But they would need to be specific, so if they missed something the feds could still act on those points. Rudy was so scatterbrained and corrupt he probably wouldn't be able to remember everything he did.

Trump didn't need pardons if he had the doj issuing these "agreements" which would be fully binding on any future admin. And they could be kept secret until needed.

If the doj managed to get the phone records of innocent journalists, why wouldn't they sign a pile of agreements pro-forma?

[Ocelot II]

3. The DoJ is federal; today's indictments are from a state court.

We don't know where the feds are. In any event, even if Barr said no prosecutions, that doesn't bind Garland's DoJ.

[getagrip_already]

5. I'm not sure they wouldn't be binding......

If an agreement has the full faith and provenance of the us government, it wouldn't be easy to undo.

[Ocelot II]

6. If that had happened we'd probably know about it -

Barr would more likely have tried an underhanded stunt like the Bill Cosby deal, and that decision is binding only wrt PA. In any event, the NY indictments just issued are just the start. The feds don't have to get him if Vance does.

[getagrip_already]

7. how would we know? Aren't those details kept private?

It's not a plea agreement where it becomes part of the public record. It's a tool prosecutors use to gain cooperation from witnesses to testify aginst others. We rarely see those unless they are introduced in a court case, and since these cases were never charged, it's likely the agreements are confidential.

Sure, someone who has one could disclose it, but why would they unless they are being charged?

[The Magistrate]

8. It Does Not Seem Applicable, Sir

What seems to be the key element of this decision is that Cosby, relying on the prosecutor's statement, waived his Fifth Amendment rights in a civil proceeding. This deposition testimony became an element at his later criminal trial. It was not simply the court saying, hey, the one guy said he wouldn't, so no one ever can. Had Cosby pled the Fifth in the civil deposition, what the prosecutor said years before wouldn't have mattered.

For someone to make a similar claim in some Trump related case, the person would have to have done something concrete that waived a right on the basis of an assurance of safety. If, for example, Weisselberg had been told he would not risk prosecution, and then went ahead to testified he had committed fraud on Trump's behalf, after which that deposition was used against him at a future trial.

[getagrip_already]

9. thats my point though....

If they gave faux testimony and admitted their own crimes in exchange for immunity, the feds would not be able to charge them for those crimes since it could be argued they gave the feds the evidence under the assumption they wouldn't be charged.

Then the feds merely bury the case the qualifying testimony applied to.

In other words, W did a data dump on his own guilt while testifying in a related case which was never pursued.

Almost all of the clan could do this. It would taint any federal prosecution forever.

It would require conspiracy all the way up the chain though. And keeping it quiet would require a lot of threats - but the doj operates under an umbrella of secrecy for open investigations so the tools are there.

Just speculating of course.

[The Magistrate]

11. Your Suggestion Has A Lot Of Moving Parts, Sir

A person can be given 'use immunity' for testimony --- their testimony admitting crimes cannot be used against them at trial for those crimes. They can be prosecuted using evidence which does not trace to the testimony they gave relying on the 'use immunity' granted. For example, if the person testifies 'yes, I was in the room with individual one and signed the document', should the prosecution produce an expert who testifies at trial yes, that's his signature, and someone else testifies to seeing him enter the room, the rights of the person charged have not been violated, because this evidence does not derive from the testimony he gave relying on a promise his evidence would not be used against him. Another person could still be charged based on the testimony he gave. His testimony to an act in that room by individual one would still stand, and would be independent of any testimony individual one might have given elsewhere under a similar grant.

[getagrip_already]

15. thanks, but wouldn't firewalling the testimony be difficult?

Wouldn't it be hard to prove an independent and pre-existing investigation? Proving you didn't use the testimony to uncover evidence related to it sounds difficult, especially if it is done after the fact.

But that clarifies things somewhat.

[The Magistrate]

17. Yes, It Is, Sir

A defense attorney who did not appeal a conviction in the circumstance suggested above would be doing a poor job. But success in the appeal would not be guaranteed.

[StarfishSaver]

10. No.

These are two different systems - this is a state case and the DOJ has no involvement.

I wouldn't be surprised, however to find out that the state and feds are coordinating and are purposely not bringing cases against the same entities for the same types of charges - meaning the feds may be concentrating on Trump the individual while the state focuses on his companies.

FYI - there wasn't an agreement in the Cosby case.

[getagrip_already]

13. true, but federal prosecutors use the same methods.....

They routinely grant immunity in exchange for sworn testimony. Sometimes that testimony isn't used, but the immunity provided continues.

If I make a deal to tell what I know in a federal kidnapping case, and it implicates me directly but the target is much more important, anything I tell the prosecutors can't be used to charge me if that is the deal. That is routine. It continues even if the target dies and can't be brought to trial.

[StarfishSaver]

14. But the feds would not make a deal not to prosecute based on a state court case

And there's no reason at all to believe that the federal prosecutors have struck any deal with Trump regarding federal charges.

[getagrip_already]

20. the link to cosby was just an example... I'm talking strictly federal level

The counter arguments are valid. It would take a lot of moving parts to poison the well to the extent that would be needed to cover just his family, let alone cronies.

For that reason alone, I don't think it's likely. But it is possible given the level of corruption in the doj.

[Ms. Toad]

19. There ws no exchange. Period.

Cosby did not agree to testify in exchange for a promise not to prosecute. The prosecutor did not promise not to prosecute in exchange for sworn testimony.

He testified, under subpoena, in a civil trial - where he could have asserted the 5th if he was worried about his words being used against hime - but chose not to even try. That is the reason the trial was allowed to proceed and he was convicted. That is the reason it was upheld on appeal. There was no deal. Cosby did not give sworn testimony in exchange for anything.

The Supreme court looked at detrimental reliance (a unilateral promise by the prosecutor -not made in exchange for anything from Cosby). Personally, I don't believe Cosby relied on it - I think he was arrogant enough to believe he didn't do anything wrong so nothing he said would incriminate - becuase he was yammering away before the prosecutor's decision and continued to yammer afterwards. The Supreme Court read those facts differently - in my opinion - because they wanted to grant his appeal.

[Ms. Toad]

12. There was no Cosby deal.

It was a unilateral decision made by the prosecutorr. Cosby did ask for immunity in exchange for testifying in the civil trial. I know that is how many are describing it - but read the opinion.

It was a public proclamation of a decision made by the prosecutor with the hope that it would permit Costand to get some justice once the threat of prosecution was off the table. Two courts determined there was no agreement and that detrimental reliance and promissory estoppel were not bars to subsequent prosecution. The Supreme Court disagreed and, after reading the opinion, I believe they were stretching to reach the outcome they wanted.

[getagrip_already]

16. cosby was just an allegory, not a direct link...

Yes, I know that was a state case. I'm speculating on a federal effort to shield the clan.

I only referenced cosby as an example of how a deal (or the perception of a deal), could complicate prosecution, especially if it was intentional.

[Ms. Toad]

18. I wasn't making a distinction between state and federal.

I was making a distinction between a deal (regardless of the court) and not making a deal.

Cosby's situation is widely being described as a deal, when there was none. At all.

The difference between a contract (which is nearly always binding, even in the criminal context) and a unilateral decision made public is enormous. The fact that it survived not only rigorous evaluation at the trial court - but also on appeal - should make clear that this was not an example of a deal gone bad.

[getagrip_already]

21. thanks, that makes it clearer for me...... n/t