Latest Breaking News

thesquanderer

(13,154 posts)

251. Many crimes involve no beans to spill. That doesn't mean they don't get plea deals.

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 02:07 PM

Jul 2016

There doesn't have to be another person involved to get a plea deal. Courts like to get things off the calendar. Prosecutors like to not risk losing. If you have been accused of a crime, you can often avoid a trial by agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser charge, simple as that, no beans. Heck, you can even do it with a traffic violation.

Immunity is not simply another kind or extension of a plea deal, it is a separate thing. A plea deal means you admit guilt for something and accept some sentence (jail, a fine, probation, whatever). However, you can get immunity without admitting guilt to anything. Bryan Pagliano has received limited immunity, but has not pled guilty for anything, and has not received a sentence. So these are really two completely different things. If you may have knowledge of other crimes, immunity related to those additional crimes can be offered as part of a plea deal, but it is still its own thing. You can have a plea without immunity, immunity without a plea, both, or neither.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

262 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

CNN and MSNBC confirm Hillary Clinton will not face any charges in email inquiry [View all] Cryptoad Jul 2016 OP

Now where did I put my Happy Dance Shoes? Cryptoad Jul 2016 #1

Yep... Grassy Knoll Jul 2016 #83

I think that's Courtney Cox dancing with The Boss! (n/t) PJMcK Jul 2016 #101

Yes.... Grassy Knoll Jul 2016 #104

That's a cool gif, but ... Tortmaster Jul 2016 #112

. Grassy Knoll Jul 2016 #117

Now that is THE CARLTON!!! MADem Jul 2016 #154

This, but how could someone face charges in a security review? scscholar Jul 2016 #102

Those were the words used by the Clinton campaign. former9thward Jul 2016 #152

It was ALWAYS an investigation. "Security review" doesnt exist. 7962 Jul 2016 #165

Yay! shenmue Jul 2016 #133

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #2

Meaning?????????? leftofcool Jul 2016 #4

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #5

That's a pretty serious charge that you're levelling against AG Lynch lapucelle Jul 2016 #10

The biggest clue, which we've had right in front of our faces all along, is that so many RW pnwmom Jul 2016 #75

Longer than 20 years PJMcK Jul 2016 #92

+1. n/t pnwmom Jul 2016 #96

And, this goes for her haters on the left, too, sadly: Surya Gayatri Jul 2016 #160

Seriously, unrelated! mountain grammy Jul 2016 #15

Please elaborate PJMcK Jul 2016 #11

Cue the conspiracy theories Mz Pip Jul 2016 #12

Suck it Trump! leftofcool Jul 2016 #3

It is simply not the place of the government to determine if she did wrong. AngryAmish Jul 2016 #6

Agreed philosslayer Jul 2016 #52

This, and Nick Merrill confirmed today that it wasn't an investigation (ntxt) scscholar Jul 2016 #129

You might want to look again what you wrote. Rilgin Jul 2016 #218

Who do you think should determine if law and policy were violated? TipTok Jul 2016 #231

I don't understand what this big ado is all about. You've had some 228 replies Cal33 Jul 2016 #234

No biggie!🖨🖨🖨🖨🖨🖨 AngryAmish Jul 2016 #240

so.... chillfactor Jul 2016 #7

Hate to break it to you but the odds are that the nonsense from both the right wing and cstanleytech Jul 2016 #14

They will see this as proof Hillary has the FBI in her pocket and cameras in their cereal boxes. Squinch Jul 2016 #19

I'll just quote Bernie himself... backscatter712 Jul 2016 #119

Of course, you're right to some extent PJMcK Jul 2016 #120

Yes! NastyRiffraff Jul 2016 #190

I'll bet you money that the loons keep harping on this despite this outcome. Squinch Jul 2016 #16

Oh definitely PatSeg Jul 2016 #30

It's a given. They live in a rut. Trump will likely now say this proves how corrupt the RKP5637 Jul 2016 #88

What else do those sorry, pathetic, hate-filled wingnuts have? MADem Jul 2016 #198

I think in the wider world, beyond Democrats, it is backfiring too. It took decades to get here, Squinch Jul 2016 #199

I think you're right in that observation. nt MADem Jul 2016 #207

There will be more coco77 Jul 2016 #202

Bill Maher calls these "zombie lies," because they keep shuffling about even tblue37 Jul 2016 #222

Perfect analogy! Squinch Jul 2016 #223

CNN has been reporting on it like nothing else is going on today. Boomerproud Jul 2016 #8

What took you so long? (wink, n/t) PJMcK Jul 2016 #13

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #192

I wonder if the FBI has to let subjects know whether they're targets lapucelle Jul 2016 #9

Your second paragraph is the key point PJMcK Jul 2016 #17

Funny you should mention the "corporately-owned news organizations" because Wisc Progressive Jul 2016 #25

It is anti-Clinton, and has been for decades. That he signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 still_one Jul 2016 #35

There is another possibility PJMcK Jul 2016 #39

FBI has stated very clearly all along Cryptoad Jul 2016 #31

Yeah, I'm with you, Cryptoad PJMcK Jul 2016 #45

This is confusing dragonfly301 Jul 2016 #22

Because they might have been investigating if he played any part. Hoyt Jul 2016 #33

Absolutely still_one Jul 2016 #40

Yup, of course that didnt stop some from jumping the gun to the conclusion cstanleytech Jul 2016 #63

Guccifer, a Romanian hacker, hacked into Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account, allegedly. amandabeech Jul 2016 #56

No one should rely on the allegations you repeat here as ANY kind of truth, pnwmom Jul 2016 #91

Suit yourself. n/t amandabeech Jul 2016 #100

Pagliano set up or helped set up Hillary's private e-mail server. amandabeech Jul 2016 #72

Pagliano wasn't granted total immunity creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #139

Thank you for expressing this better than I did. n/t amandabeech Jul 2016 #180

Because he had a smart lawyer who wanted to make sure that nothing pnwmom Jul 2016 #89

CNN says they have "multiple law enforcement sources." n/t pnwmom Jul 2016 #86

CNN had no one but MFM008 Jul 2016 #156

If they're so dominated by R's, why would they falsely claim pnwmom Jul 2016 #159

I'm just saying what I saw MFM008 Jul 2016 #171

Why does the fact that they interviewed many R's tell you pnwmom Jul 2016 #172

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #18

Right on! (n/t) PJMcK Jul 2016 #46

I'm not seeing this story at any other links yet bucolic_frolic Jul 2016 #20

From CNN: yallerdawg Jul 2016 #21

I tuned in to that "other" network for a minute RussBLib Jul 2016 #23

I looked up at the TV at the gym and they had some "13 Hours of Horror in BENGHAZI" playing.... winstars Jul 2016 #98

I know it doesn't matter mercuryblues Jul 2016 #99

But now hasn't Bill Clinton put another damn conspiracy right in their hands doc03 Jul 2016 #24

They would just have found something else and or made up one. nt cstanleytech Jul 2016 #26

Bill Clinton is supposed to be a political genius why would he doc03 Jul 2016 #34

You could ask the same question over why he would risk his office to get a blowjob and cstanleytech Jul 2016 #42

Could be that the "connection" between bumping into Lynch in Phoenix and this long long... George II Jul 2016 #85

That sounds entirely possible. BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 #161

He's old and he enjoys the game of politics a lot. Chemisse Jul 2016 #111

I actually think the opposite. liberalmuse Jul 2016 #122

Bingo. Heaven forfend if the Clintons fail to put up enough flags stopbush Jul 2016 #38

We don't need to make things up Politicalboi Jul 2016 #194

My comment would not apply to you Politicalboi unless of course you are one of the cstanleytech Jul 2016 #196

It was not a "meeting" - it was a chance encounter due to delay at the airport. MADem Jul 2016 #66

He could have just called her on the phone if he wanted to do something doc03 Jul 2016 #107

Well, since the FBI said there's nothing to Clinton's emails, Loretta Lynch doesn't even have to MADem Jul 2016 #153

Has the FBI actually said there's nothing wrong? Why not release the 22 emails they're holding? floriduck Jul 2016 #191

Someone inside the investigation has given the wave-off to CNN and the NBC franchises. MADem Jul 2016 #195

Thanks for the reply. The sooner the decision is announced, the better for all. floriduck Jul 2016 #203

re: "The target, though, all along, has been the hacker. " thesquanderer Jul 2016 #233

You'll have to ask them. MADem Jul 2016 #246

re "Taking a deal means the guilty party spills the beans" thesquanderer Jul 2016 #248

Every plea deal I've seen involves bean - spilling. MADem Jul 2016 #249

Many crimes involve no beans to spill. That doesn't mean they don't get plea deals. thesquanderer Jul 2016 #251

Well, my mind isn't changed on this matter. MADem Jul 2016 #259

Even from your perspective, i.e. assuming that Guccifer must be spilling beans, thesquanderer Jul 2016 #260

Here's the answer: thesquanderer Jul 2016 #262

If true, I hope all those who "indicted" Clinton months ago apologize. Hoyt Jul 2016 #27

I wouldnt hold your breath waiting for that to happen. nt cstanleytech Jul 2016 #32

I am not a Smurf still_one Jul 2016 #44

Don't hold your breathe, Hoyt PJMcK Jul 2016 #48

This message was self-deleted by its author Hoyt Jul 2016 #64

The cult of the Indictment Fairy self-deported themselves geek tragedy Jul 2016 #59

I know of some who its going to crush though because they were holding out hope cstanleytech Jul 2016 #67

Good. I hope those rooting for Clinton to be indicted geek tragedy Jul 2016 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #108

Sadly, that's true PJMcK Jul 2016 #79

And if their wish came true, all her delegates would go to Joe Biden. pnwmom Jul 2016 #82

HA Goodman is still claiming on Twitter today that Clinton will be indicted. lapucelle Jul 2016 #206

From MSNBC phone interview: yallerdawg Jul 2016 #28

"NBC News/WSJ poll shows ... modestybl Jul 2016 #113

True, tRump just says what he thinks no matter how vile or ignorant or unaware of himself uponit7771 Jul 2016 #150

Well well well Hekate Jul 2016 #29

"The FBI had already publicly told the New York times that she was not even a target Iliyah Jul 2016 #36

What's the right going to do now that they don't have christx30 Jul 2016 #37

What she was doing in the grassy knoll still_one Jul 2016 #49

I Object... Grassy Knoll Jul 2016 #58

objection sustained. You win still_one Jul 2016 #62

Wrong. She's the fiend who faked the moon landing. calimary Jul 2016 #84

you mean we didn't land on the moon? still_one Jul 2016 #90

The Right is so sad PJMcK Jul 2016 #50

That's quite a trifecta they've got going there, PJMcK! calimary Jul 2016 #131

We stand together, calimary. PJMcK Jul 2016 #136

Speaking of HAHA charlyvi Jul 2016 #197

I knew that months ago. Everybody knew that months ago. onehandle Jul 2016 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #93

Except those that watch the news bhikkhu Jul 2016 #106

That was pretty much accepted by most objective people months ago. Just like the Benghazi fiasco. George II Jul 2016 #43

Now that his last way forward appears over, will Sanders do the right thing? Hoyt Jul 2016 #47

You think? n/t doc03 Jul 2016 #53

Such as? Matt_R Jul 2016 #219

No mention of this on CNN.com,MSNBC.com or Fox News .com only says she was doc03 Jul 2016 #51

David Brook Geronimoe Jul 2016 #54

Why because you don't like the OP? still_one Jul 2016 #57

No because no relable sources Geronimoe Jul 2016 #65

No, this is a RW lie. The WH never said that. n/t pnwmom Jul 2016 #69

Yes they did Geronimoe Jul 2016 #70

Post the link to anyone at the WH saying this. leftofcool Jul 2016 #74

No, you didn't. You can't provide a link because it never happened. n/t pnwmom Jul 2016 #77

I wouldnt be willing to wager on that. cstanleytech Jul 2016 #73

No one can prove a negative. But if it was said the poster should be able pnwmom Jul 2016 #80

No, the WH did not say that and the FBI has said numerous times HRC was not the target. leftofcool Jul 2016 #71

Hillary is not going to be indicted. geek tragedy Jul 2016 #81

if u had read the OP it provided a link Cryptoad Jul 2016 #109

You having a sad? nt geek tragedy Jul 2016 #61

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #94

Not propaganda! KalicoKitty Jul 2016 #141

For sure arikara Jul 2016 #146

The only people who thought otherwise were Trumpbots, Paulbots and right wing conspiracy theorists, MADem Jul 2016 #55

There were (or are) still DUers awaiting the Indictment Fairy. Maybe they will simmer down NOW? Hekate Jul 2016 #97

They're not living up to their agreement if that is the case. MADem Jul 2016 #155

Surprise surprise DrDan Jul 2016 #60

Hi itsrobert Jul 2016 #68

. Jester Messiah Jul 2016 #78

Daily News Bin Geronimoe Jul 2016 #87

That is not true. Did you even go to the link? still_one Jul 2016 #95

A unregistered GoDady promoting Hillary Geronimoe Jul 2016 #116

LOL,..... Grassy Knoll Jul 2016 #126

no educated person could read that story NJCher Jul 2016 #134

*Ahem* NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #103

I found this from a previous post. floriduck Jul 2016 #193

Oh, OK.... Grassy Knoll Jul 2016 #105

No, it isn't. You're confusing it with another site. At any rate the source is NBC. CNN has it, MADem Jul 2016 #157

Well, thank goodness sangfroid Jul 2016 #110

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #114

You do realize the FBI doesn't indict don't you? As far as your implied conspirisy still_one Jul 2016 #123

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #179

You're still wrong. okasha Jul 2016 #204

Well, this is a relief. PatrickforO Jul 2016 #115

Alleluia! lovuian Jul 2016 #118

It is going to be sad for some I am sure when the republicans lose the Senate still_one Jul 2016 #125

I can't wait for the day the Republicans lovuian Jul 2016 #210

The key issue has been intent from day one and FBI found no evidence of intent Gothmog Jul 2016 #121

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #124

Gee, you are going to be disappointed when the FBI officially doesn't find any criminal still_one Jul 2016 #127

"Funny that faux news is spewing the same garbage..." Surya Gayatri Jul 2016 #162

It sure seems that way still_one Jul 2016 #178

BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAA!!!111!! Grassy Knoll Jul 2016 #132

Another Republican attack on the Clinton�s amounts to nothing liberal N proud Jul 2016 #128

Yes! KingFlorez Jul 2016 #130

There is no such conclusion on MSNBC. This is fiction not LBN. KeepItReal Jul 2016 #135

I checked CNN's site, MSNBC's site, even Politico: Couldn't Find It Night Watchman Jul 2016 #137

Not quite creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #142

The MSNBC was based on a Chuck Todd interview, and CNN was a tweet from a still_one Jul 2016 #143

"sources tell CNN the expectation is Clinton will not face charges." KeepItReal Jul 2016 #144

exactly - sounds like hearsay transatlantica Jul 2016 #158

Yeah, not LBN. Todd's statement may be LBN, the rest is opinion/commentary/interpretation thesquanderer Jul 2016 #221

Agreed Night Watchman Jul 2016 #225

WOO HOO!!! YESSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lunamagica Jul 2016 #138

Been saying that for months elmac Jul 2016 #140

Mahalo, Cryptotoad~ Cha Jul 2016 #145

The sooner we can put this totally behind her the better... jimlup Jul 2016 #147

"This information was obvious enough all along to anyone who followed the story accurately....." Tarheel_Dem Jul 2016 #148

This article is based upon rumor and misstatements.. k8conant Jul 2016 #149

Many broken hearts over this. JNelson6563 Jul 2016 #151

I hope that this means that any more BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 #163

"Clinton replied by saying that he had no knowledge of such matters " patricia92243 Jul 2016 #164

For everyone living in the real world this was very obvious the outcome. youceyec Jul 2016 #166

K&R! stonecutter357 Jul 2016 #167

Think about it Jarqui Jul 2016 #168

No, the Fox News fantasies of an indictment were never accurate. geek tragedy Jul 2016 #174

Back up your claim Jarqui Jul 2016 #186

Lol, please promise to post your take when the announcement is made geek tragedy Jul 2016 #188

Thought so. All air - absolutely nothing behind it.nt Jarqui Jul 2016 #229

No, it's just that we've had to make the argument so much geek tragedy Jul 2016 #230

Were you a part of the FBI investigating and/or writing up the report? Jarqui Jul 2016 #232

LMAO. People who pimp the Fox News talking points geek tragedy Jul 2016 #235

BS Jarqui Jul 2016 #245

. geek tragedy Jul 2016 #247

It is against the criminal law to have classified material on your home computer Jarqui Jul 2016 #250

All of the amateur, know-nothing Internet prosecutors geek tragedy Jul 2016 #252

I don't follow Drudge or care what they have to say. Trump's weighing in on it: Jarqui Jul 2016 #253

Do you promise to comment once the decision is announced? nt geek tragedy Jul 2016 #254

Absolutely. I'm not the one saying "she's going to be indicted" or Jarqui Jul 2016 #258

. geek tragedy Jul 2016 #261

The people who set up and service her computer, amandabeech Jul 2016 #255

Of course she WONT be indicted. Doesnt mean she did nothing wrong. 7962 Jul 2016 #213

She displayed poor judgment, which is not a crime. geek tragedy Jul 2016 #217

"Poor judgement" regarding security will likely cost you your job 7962 Jul 2016 #224

K&R! stonecutter357 Jul 2016 #169

CNN? MSNBC? SmittynMo Jul 2016 #170

It's on the front page on CNN and MSNBC XemaSab Jul 2016 #173

There must be a solid source for this. I cant really see everybody starting to celebrate if there Jemmons Jul 2016 #220

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #175

I see no other major media running with this, until I do, I will wait to hear Comey himself AntiBank Jul 2016 #176

LOL Evergreen Emerald Jul 2016 #182

glad to be of assistance AntiBank Jul 2016 #187

Hillary fasttense Jul 2016 #177

Another Nonsensegate CanonRay Jul 2016 #181

BENGHAZI!!!!11111 jpak Jul 2016 #183

Drink! Cryptoad Jul 2016 #189

Well of course not ismnotwasm Jul 2016 #184

nothing to see here citizen.... getagrip_already Jul 2016 #185

Good news! MynameisBlarney Jul 2016 #200

Bill will continue to be a problem.. coco77 Jul 2016 #201

He's not been a problem with me. upaloopa Jul 2016 #205

Maybe not for you.. coco77 Jul 2016 #208

I doubt it, hes kept mostly out of it since he left office and I have not seen anything cstanleytech Jul 2016 #211

They will bait him coco77 Jul 2016 #214

They can try but he generally has given them the middle finger on taking it in the past. nt cstanleytech Jul 2016 #215

I remember there was a case a few months ago when he barged into a Cal33 Jul 2016 #242

Yeah, he had a megaphone. amandabeech Jul 2016 #256

He's not a problem with me, either. lunamagica Jul 2016 #212

Stupid silly Repug idiots! Typical wolfie001 Jul 2016 #209

Many Dems have not bought into it coco77 Jul 2016 #216

I share the View of Many Posters Above Night Watchman Jul 2016 #226

CNN reported that they have sources.. DCBob Jul 2016 #239

Say Bye-Bye, Indictment Fairy! Vogon_Glory Jul 2016 #227

Todd's statement is not what the OP said it was. thesquanderer Jul 2016 #228

I think this was the main source.. which seems legit to me. DCBob Jul 2016 #238

And who are those sources? Are they from DOJ? FBI? Or from Hillary's campaign itself? thesquanderer Jul 2016 #241

"sources familiar with the investigation told CNN" DCBob Jul 2016 #244

re: "Hillary�s otherwise steady and controversy free campaign." This is a serious news source? thesquanderer Jul 2016 #236

Please read my reply #234 (about 1/4 of the way down from the top of this Cal33 Jul 2016 #237

Up next humbled_opinion Jul 2016 #243

Will they focus their resources on Jane Sanders now? tallahasseedem Jul 2016 #257