Let’s get this out of the way upfront: you don’t want to be in a position where making a proffer agreement is the best idea you have to keep your sorry ass out of jail.
You know who will probably say. That guy, I don’t really know him. He fetched me some DIET COKES!! And I agree 100%. You are a great writer. And thank you for keeping us informed. On this circus we have been living through.
Here’s the best writing of what the proffer business with Rudy involves. I’ve wondered why I especially look forward to your column. The second to last sentence is why: “I specialize in making this very grim stuff about very bad men fun to read.” That’s it. Thanks Lucian for everything you write.
So, I'm not sure your statement to the effect that a person who admits to crimes he committed under a proffer agreement cannot be prosecuted for those crimes is true.
I believe the correct way to describe it is his admissions cannot be used against him. However, if other investigative avenues can prove the crimes he can still be prosecuted for them. As I understand it even the statements themselves can be used to gather evidence of the crimes and then that evidence can be used against him.
Do you think perhaps Mr. T. quietly went to law school? (Or maybe it was the Mrs.) My predominant thought about Rudy and his proffer is that he likely suffers from alcohol-related brain damage which will not serve him well - or Jack Smith. You must admit that the DTs could also afflict him, and aren't those initials just a marvelous coincidence?!
"Alcoholic insult to the brain" is a diagnostic term I've always liked. I wouldn''t be at all surprised if it is a routine Giuliani occurrence, along with David's "chronic loss of appropriate blood flow to the brain."
Regardless of whatever Rudolph Giuliani offers the prosecutors by way of information, he is going to do jail time. Giuliani has to know that his former colleagues in the Department of Justice are hell-bent to put him behind bars for as long as they can, and the information that Giuliani provides on Donald Trump would need to be something that the prosecutors have not yet seen, and which new information would be central to their claims against other defendants within the Trump orbit. Entirely apart from the crimes that Rudolph Giuliani committed himself, or facilitated on the part of others, he is a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, an elevated position within the legal community there of such high esteem that only the most qualified individuals are offered the post; and here, Giuliani has gone from the apex of the prosecutorial community within New York City to becoming synonymous with Donald J Trump's sleazy and seditious attempt not only to overthrow the 2020 election, but to overthrow the United States Government itself. Giuliani's machinations led directly to the January 6 insurrection. Maybe he thinks that becoming a witness for the Government will earn him some sort of redemption as an expression of his own contrition over what he is done, but I find that proposition doubtful. Here is a man in his later years, having been a successful prosecutor for the government that is now seeking to prosecute him for crimes that threaten the very foundation of the country he is sworn to serve; and afterword, the Mayor of the City of New York at the time when the city was attacked by Islamic terrorists, and for the next two decades, he worked to ingratiate himself with the man who, as president, actively worked to sell his country out to its sworn enemies abroad. At the very least the man is guilty of sedition in its vilest form. From the standpoint of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, if Giuliani testifies fully and truthfully about material matters that aid the government in his prosecution of other persons, he might be entitled to a downward revision of what his punitive sentence would otherwise be if he stood his ground and said nothing at all during his trial. The sentencing guidelines are intended to reward cooperation by defendant who accepts responsibility for his crimes, and demonstrates an honest remorse for what he is done. I find it hard to believe that Rudolph Giuliani would show any remorse for what he is done. In his life he was privileged above most others in terms of the offices that he is held, and it would be hard to give credence to whatever internal grievances Giuliani might have felt that propelled him down the path that he eventually took to support and justify the Trump attempted coup d'état. He should consider himself extremely fortunate that someone like myself is not on the bench confronting him and passing sentence upon him.
I almost forgot the fact that Giuliani was a SDNY attorney, and he is (or was) very capable and aware of the laws he broke in order to serve as Donald Trump's messenger boy.
I think he'll be given a very small proffer and if he doesn't take it, they'll nail him for everything he's done because he used to be one of the good guys.
Cops and lawyers have very little love or respect for those people who have betrayed their profession.
"The Thin Blue Line" is the concept that holds people are lawless and require rigorous enforcement to prevent anarchy for uprooting civil society. This Blue Line against a Black border continues to be a symbol of respect to those officers who have died in the line of duty.
This doesn't account for the fact that police are people and hence, subject to corruption, and misuse of their authority. To misuse violence, a long-term practice which has been against targeted on specially selected community members . Since the death of George Floyd, the public outcry worldwide, is attempting to hold police officers accountable for their misuse of power. The separation between police from the community has resulted in wholesale extra-judicial murder, rape and extortion. The failing respect and confidence in law enforcement is a recipe for civil discord.
The failure to report corrupt police was known as "The Blue Line of Silence".
This unwritten policy protected "dirty cops" and other law enforcement officers, and resulted in years and years of gross "miscarriage of justice". The very idea that hiding behind a uniform can entitled people to carry guns and exert deadly force is outrageous!
People who just may not be members of their clubs, or share the advantages of employment or health care, are the be treated as second-class citizens. in this country. And those who flee oppression or poverty or scarcity of resources, have a right to the legal processing that has always made this country a beacon of hope. That light is dimming, and it breaks my heart (and boggles my mind!), to think our grandparents who fled Ukraine more than 100 years ago, would never had a chance to build a life free of persecution, or worse.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_immunity - This account is extremely broad, interesting for the wide coverage, almost totally irrelevant to the topic of what immunity Rudy might or might not receive, though.
Receiving Immunity for Testimony in a Criminal Law Case
Anyone who is charged with a crime has a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This means that they cannot be forced to reveal incriminating information about themselves, even if they are asked by law enforcement or in court. The privilege against self-incrimination covers not only responses that are directly incriminating but also responses that could lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence. Sometimes a prosecutor may bargain with someone who is suspected of a crime if they are believed to have information about other criminal activity. In exchange for testifying against someone else, the witness may receive immunity from prosecution. Immunity comes in different types and may have restrictions, so it is important to understand the specific deal that a prosecutor is offering before agreeing to it.
Types of Immunity
The Two Types of Immunity
1
Transactional immunity (total immunity)
2
Use and derivative use immunity
Also known as total immunity, transactional immunity provides a shield against any future charges based on any matter related to the testimony. (The prosecution still can bring charges against the witness for matters that are unrelated to the testimony.) The federal criminal justice system does not offer transactional immunity, but many states do.
The other main type of immunity is known as use and derivative use immunity. This comes with more restrictions and thus is more often offered by prosecutors. Use and derivative use immunity protects the witness from having the prosecution use their statements or any evidence discovered from their statements against them. Essentially, this produces the same result as if the witness invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege and did not testify at all. It allows the prosecution to bring charges based on the same crime against the witness, as long as the charges are based entirely on independent evidence from a different source. Whether that evidence is sufficient to convict the witness without using their statements can be left to a judge or jury to decide.
Limits on Immunity
Typically, a prosecutor offers immunity to someone who has committed a minor crime because they believe that it will help them catch or convict someone who has committed a major crime. Often, it arises in the context of organized crime, when the prosecution offers a subordinate immunity in exchange for testifying against the leader of the enterprise. If you agree to this type of deal, you must testify as promised, or you may face jail time and fines.
You Must Testify
An individual who refuses to testify after being awarded immunity can be held in contempt of court and possibly jailed.
Sometimes a prosecutor will bring charges against a witness who has been granted immunity. The defendant can raise the defense of immunity by producing evidence to show that they received immunity with regard to the subject matter of the charges. The prosecution then must explain how they acquired all of their evidence. A blanket statement that they did not use the immunized testimony or evidence arising from it will not go far enough. Any evidence that the prosecution acquired from the immunized testimony likely will be excluded from consideration at trial. If excluding this evidence means that the prosecution has no case, the court will dismiss the charges.
Waiving Immunity
In rare cases, a former witness can waive immunity after receiving it. This allows the prosecution to bring charges against them based on their testimony. The waiver can be explicit, which means that the witness signs a written waiver. Or the waiver can be implicit, which may happen when a witness makes a voluntary statement to law enforcement without claiming immunity. An individual sometimes will implicitly waive immunity in advance by choosing to testify rather than asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege.
Thanks for the entirely necessary tutorial on "proffer," which sorta sounds like the 50-cent, legal version of 5-dollar "obeisance." I think the photo which goes best with please-keep-me-out-of-jail is Rudy lying flat on his back on a bed, looking at someone he had been told was an teenage girl under the age of consent, with his hand way down his pants. Later he "explained" he was tucking in his shirt. (The Art of Manliness website pages on how-to-tuck don't show anything quite as assiduous, if not outright lascivious, as Rudy's technique.) I mention that photo because there are probably prisoners in any jail who would give fellow-inmate Rudy a literal hard time over it. As he was putting himself in such profound legal jeopardy on behalf of Trump, Rudy apparently forgot the old saw (and tagline for the TV detective series "Baretta"), "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
Do you think Trump ever sits back, closes his eyes for a moment and says to himself, 'Why do these things?" I bet he's never done that in his life, not capable of self reflection. Jt's other people trying to make him look bad.
Donald Trump is incapable of self-reflection. He's so narcissistic that everything he does is wonderful and justified to him just because he did it, and nobody told him to. His brain alone!
It's like that guy who hasn't got any ideas of how or what to do but will gladly steal yours to make himself look great.
Yesm They talk about the radical left but never the radical right with their mean snarling faces . They have taken full control of the Republican party pinning their hopes of victory on looser Trump, who will lead them over the edge to disaster.
I think you got that exactly right: “Not capable of self reflection.” That’s why he will never change. He’s still the same whiney demanding spoiled brat he’s always been, throwing catsup against the wall; only now he may finally suffer the consequences of his actions.
But. but. but, weren't these people on the most winning team ever when Trump was running for POTUS last time? Did their karma get kicked in the shins because Trump seems to have embroiled them in a massive plot to overthrow the United States?
It also seems extremely curious the timing of the guilty rush to the prosecution's offices because just the other day the US Supreme Court (in one of their more gooder rulings) declared that the novel legal theory Trump's lawyers tried out in a few states was silly and stupid, hence forggetaboutit.
"That scheme relied on friendly state legislatures appointing “alternate” slates of pro-Trump presidential electors — even if state laws certified victory for Joe Biden. Backed by fringe theories crafted by attorneys like John Eastman, Trump contended that state legislatures could unilaterally reverse the outcome and override their own laws and constitutions to do so."
So there goes that idea from those very smart and ambitious lawyers Trump had-many of whom are getting disbarred for their very dubious legal tactics. They thought they were smarter for cooking up this hair brained scheme.
Remember, that MAGA often now means, "Making Attorneys Get Attorneys" is a really good take on an obnoxious slogan, and every single one of these future federal felons deserve nothing better than a few years in prison (and disbarment) for it.
Especially Giuliani-because between him and Eastman they really did try to subvert an election for Trump and failed so badly that they not only lost the election but also got pummeled by every single court in the US that heard their 'fake electors' scheme.
Rudy must have been sweating while talking to the feds-I just hope that he didn't use any cheap hair dye or shoe polish because we all know what that looks like-eww.
Lucian, Jack Smith reminds me of Elliott Ness shining the proverbial light in Rudy’s face. He pummels him with questions without touching a single hair on his almost bald head. Offers him a proffer, take it or leave it. Dark brown sweat beads drip down his face like rain on a hot tin roof. Rudy knows his goose is cooked. No more “Hail to the Chief”. More like “Hell to the Chief”.
Judith, you're (I suspect) thinking exactly what I'm thinking. yes, this is good news on many levels. but it completely sucks to the extent that it demonstrates yet again that there really IS a two (or more) tiered justice system.
if Rudy weren't so "important," he'd be doing some hard time now. but when the dust settles, I don't think he'll be hearing any iron gates slamming shut behind him. which sucks.
and if that prick Eastman loses his law license, he'll still be able to collect handsome fees speaking at all those (is there no fucking end to them?) "conservative" conclaves, along with all those other career criminals.
Never say never. My opinion only but I think Rudy is still facing possible charges in Georgia. I don’t see him getting off of any hook because he has been disbarred already for his actions. Hell, he should have been disbarred just for showing up with the worst dye streaming down his face!
What it means is that whatever statements he makes on that day and time only cannot be used against him in court. It is not immunity although that may be the next step.
I'm going to borrow an illustration from Andrew Weissmann to explain. If you tell the prosecutors during a Queen for a Day proffer that you stole a book from the library and left it in your bedroom, the government can use that statement to obtain a search warrant for your house, seize the book and use that evidence against you in court in a trial for stealing the book. They cannot use your statement in court however. You also have to not lie during a proffer or you can be prosecuted for that.
I hope it's correct. I expect that someone like Weissmann knows what he's talking about. It didn't sound right at first but the more I think about it the more logical it seems.
You know who will probably say. That guy, I don’t really know him. He fetched me some DIET COKES!! And I agree 100%. You are a great writer. And thank you for keeping us informed. On this circus we have been living through.
Here’s the best writing of what the proffer business with Rudy involves. I’ve wondered why I especially look forward to your column. The second to last sentence is why: “I specialize in making this very grim stuff about very bad men fun to read.” That’s it. Thanks Lucian for everything you write.
Yeah, the ketchup cleanup crews are really busy at Bedminster right now…
...omg with the grave figgers...
So, I'm not sure your statement to the effect that a person who admits to crimes he committed under a proffer agreement cannot be prosecuted for those crimes is true.
I believe the correct way to describe it is his admissions cannot be used against him. However, if other investigative avenues can prove the crimes he can still be prosecuted for them. As I understand it even the statements themselves can be used to gather evidence of the crimes and then that evidence can be used against him.
I think that's more accurate. I'll fix it.
Fixed.
I’ve always, as an investigative reporter, loved the word “proffer.”
Now that it's attached to Rudy Giuliani, you can love it all the more.
I can!!!
You gotta know most of the media can't stand poor Rudy -- it's obvious in the photos they choose to use.
I was just looking up proffer when the post came up. Thank you for the much better explanation, Lucian.
I take it proffers do not include trial by combat.
I’d pay to see that, but then who isn’t feeling (metaphorically) blood thirsty by now.
I doubt either of them can even throw a decent punch!
Do you think perhaps Mr. T. quietly went to law school? (Or maybe it was the Mrs.) My predominant thought about Rudy and his proffer is that he likely suffers from alcohol-related brain damage which will not serve him well - or Jack Smith. You must admit that the DTs could also afflict him, and aren't those initials just a marvelous coincidence?!
unfortunately, the DTs are never a foregone conclusion.
in Rudy's case, it'd more likely be some kind of barely-premature dementia resulting from the chronic loss of appropriate blood flow to the brain.
that was a Viagra joke.
"Alcoholic insult to the brain" is a diagnostic term I've always liked. I wouldn''t be at all surprised if it is a routine Giuliani occurrence, along with David's "chronic loss of appropriate blood flow to the brain."
My thinking on Rudy's drinking too. I feel for the guy. He is a full blown drunk . And a clown.
Regardless of whatever Rudolph Giuliani offers the prosecutors by way of information, he is going to do jail time. Giuliani has to know that his former colleagues in the Department of Justice are hell-bent to put him behind bars for as long as they can, and the information that Giuliani provides on Donald Trump would need to be something that the prosecutors have not yet seen, and which new information would be central to their claims against other defendants within the Trump orbit. Entirely apart from the crimes that Rudolph Giuliani committed himself, or facilitated on the part of others, he is a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, an elevated position within the legal community there of such high esteem that only the most qualified individuals are offered the post; and here, Giuliani has gone from the apex of the prosecutorial community within New York City to becoming synonymous with Donald J Trump's sleazy and seditious attempt not only to overthrow the 2020 election, but to overthrow the United States Government itself. Giuliani's machinations led directly to the January 6 insurrection. Maybe he thinks that becoming a witness for the Government will earn him some sort of redemption as an expression of his own contrition over what he is done, but I find that proposition doubtful. Here is a man in his later years, having been a successful prosecutor for the government that is now seeking to prosecute him for crimes that threaten the very foundation of the country he is sworn to serve; and afterword, the Mayor of the City of New York at the time when the city was attacked by Islamic terrorists, and for the next two decades, he worked to ingratiate himself with the man who, as president, actively worked to sell his country out to its sworn enemies abroad. At the very least the man is guilty of sedition in its vilest form. From the standpoint of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, if Giuliani testifies fully and truthfully about material matters that aid the government in his prosecution of other persons, he might be entitled to a downward revision of what his punitive sentence would otherwise be if he stood his ground and said nothing at all during his trial. The sentencing guidelines are intended to reward cooperation by defendant who accepts responsibility for his crimes, and demonstrates an honest remorse for what he is done. I find it hard to believe that Rudolph Giuliani would show any remorse for what he is done. In his life he was privileged above most others in terms of the offices that he is held, and it would be hard to give credence to whatever internal grievances Giuliani might have felt that propelled him down the path that he eventually took to support and justify the Trump attempted coup d'état. He should consider himself extremely fortunate that someone like myself is not on the bench confronting him and passing sentence upon him.
I almost forgot the fact that Giuliani was a SDNY attorney, and he is (or was) very capable and aware of the laws he broke in order to serve as Donald Trump's messenger boy.
I think he'll be given a very small proffer and if he doesn't take it, they'll nail him for everything he's done because he used to be one of the good guys.
Cops and lawyers have very little love or respect for those people who have betrayed their profession.
"The Thin Blue Line" is the concept that holds people are lawless and require rigorous enforcement to prevent anarchy for uprooting civil society. This Blue Line against a Black border continues to be a symbol of respect to those officers who have died in the line of duty.
This doesn't account for the fact that police are people and hence, subject to corruption, and misuse of their authority. To misuse violence, a long-term practice which has been against targeted on specially selected community members . Since the death of George Floyd, the public outcry worldwide, is attempting to hold police officers accountable for their misuse of power. The separation between police from the community has resulted in wholesale extra-judicial murder, rape and extortion. The failing respect and confidence in law enforcement is a recipe for civil discord.
The failure to report corrupt police was known as "The Blue Line of Silence".
This unwritten policy protected "dirty cops" and other law enforcement officers, and resulted in years and years of gross "miscarriage of justice". The very idea that hiding behind a uniform can entitled people to carry guns and exert deadly force is outrageous!
People who just may not be members of their clubs, or share the advantages of employment or health care, are the be treated as second-class citizens. in this country. And those who flee oppression or poverty or scarcity of resources, have a right to the legal processing that has always made this country a beacon of hope. That light is dimming, and it breaks my heart (and boggles my mind!), to think our grandparents who fled Ukraine more than 100 years ago, would never had a chance to build a life free of persecution, or worse.
Get ready because IMO the odds are a little better than 50-50 that Mayor Rudy gets immunity.
"Immunity" is dependent on the context, Rudy cannot get immunity from state crimes via offers from the federal authorities, for example.
www.southflalaw.com/federal-witness-immunity.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_immunity - This account is extremely broad, interesting for the wide coverage, almost totally irrelevant to the topic of what immunity Rudy might or might not receive, though.
www.justia.com/criminal/immunity-for-testimony/ THIS:
Receiving Immunity for Testimony in a Criminal Law Case
Anyone who is charged with a crime has a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This means that they cannot be forced to reveal incriminating information about themselves, even if they are asked by law enforcement or in court. The privilege against self-incrimination covers not only responses that are directly incriminating but also responses that could lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence. Sometimes a prosecutor may bargain with someone who is suspected of a crime if they are believed to have information about other criminal activity. In exchange for testifying against someone else, the witness may receive immunity from prosecution. Immunity comes in different types and may have restrictions, so it is important to understand the specific deal that a prosecutor is offering before agreeing to it.
Types of Immunity
The Two Types of Immunity
1
Transactional immunity (total immunity)
2
Use and derivative use immunity
Also known as total immunity, transactional immunity provides a shield against any future charges based on any matter related to the testimony. (The prosecution still can bring charges against the witness for matters that are unrelated to the testimony.) The federal criminal justice system does not offer transactional immunity, but many states do.
The other main type of immunity is known as use and derivative use immunity. This comes with more restrictions and thus is more often offered by prosecutors. Use and derivative use immunity protects the witness from having the prosecution use their statements or any evidence discovered from their statements against them. Essentially, this produces the same result as if the witness invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege and did not testify at all. It allows the prosecution to bring charges based on the same crime against the witness, as long as the charges are based entirely on independent evidence from a different source. Whether that evidence is sufficient to convict the witness without using their statements can be left to a judge or jury to decide.
Limits on Immunity
Typically, a prosecutor offers immunity to someone who has committed a minor crime because they believe that it will help them catch or convict someone who has committed a major crime. Often, it arises in the context of organized crime, when the prosecution offers a subordinate immunity in exchange for testifying against the leader of the enterprise. If you agree to this type of deal, you must testify as promised, or you may face jail time and fines.
You Must Testify
An individual who refuses to testify after being awarded immunity can be held in contempt of court and possibly jailed.
Sometimes a prosecutor will bring charges against a witness who has been granted immunity. The defendant can raise the defense of immunity by producing evidence to show that they received immunity with regard to the subject matter of the charges. The prosecution then must explain how they acquired all of their evidence. A blanket statement that they did not use the immunized testimony or evidence arising from it will not go far enough. Any evidence that the prosecution acquired from the immunized testimony likely will be excluded from consideration at trial. If excluding this evidence means that the prosecution has no case, the court will dismiss the charges.
Waiving Immunity
In rare cases, a former witness can waive immunity after receiving it. This allows the prosecution to bring charges against them based on their testimony. The waiver can be explicit, which means that the witness signs a written waiver. Or the waiver can be implicit, which may happen when a witness makes a voluntary statement to law enforcement without claiming immunity. An individual sometimes will implicitly waive immunity in advance by choosing to testify rather than asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege.
Last reviewed October 2022
Thanks for the entirely necessary tutorial on "proffer," which sorta sounds like the 50-cent, legal version of 5-dollar "obeisance." I think the photo which goes best with please-keep-me-out-of-jail is Rudy lying flat on his back on a bed, looking at someone he had been told was an teenage girl under the age of consent, with his hand way down his pants. Later he "explained" he was tucking in his shirt. (The Art of Manliness website pages on how-to-tuck don't show anything quite as assiduous, if not outright lascivious, as Rudy's technique.) I mention that photo because there are probably prisoners in any jail who would give fellow-inmate Rudy a literal hard time over it. As he was putting himself in such profound legal jeopardy on behalf of Trump, Rudy apparently forgot the old saw (and tagline for the TV detective series "Baretta"), "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
“The Art of Manliness”...isn’t that a Josh-Let-Me-Run-Away Hawley book? 😁
Do you think Trump ever sits back, closes his eyes for a moment and says to himself, 'Why do these things?" I bet he's never done that in his life, not capable of self reflection. Jt's other people trying to make him look bad.
Donald Trump is incapable of self-reflection. He's so narcissistic that everything he does is wonderful and justified to him just because he did it, and nobody told him to. His brain alone!
It's like that guy who hasn't got any ideas of how or what to do but will gladly steal yours to make himself look great.
A perfect description, Mary. And the people that support him? What does it say about their character that they don't care about his character?
They're empty and worthless vessels waiting to be filled up with hate for the 'other' so they can feel justified in their hatred.
Yesm They talk about the radical left but never the radical right with their mean snarling faces . They have taken full control of the Republican party pinning their hopes of victory on looser Trump, who will lead them over the edge to disaster.
I think you got that exactly right: “Not capable of self reflection.” That’s why he will never change. He’s still the same whiney demanding spoiled brat he’s always been, throwing catsup against the wall; only now he may finally suffer the consequences of his actions.
But. but. but, weren't these people on the most winning team ever when Trump was running for POTUS last time? Did their karma get kicked in the shins because Trump seems to have embroiled them in a massive plot to overthrow the United States?
It also seems extremely curious the timing of the guilty rush to the prosecution's offices because just the other day the US Supreme Court (in one of their more gooder rulings) declared that the novel legal theory Trump's lawyers tried out in a few states was silly and stupid, hence forggetaboutit.
"That scheme relied on friendly state legislatures appointing “alternate” slates of pro-Trump presidential electors — even if state laws certified victory for Joe Biden. Backed by fringe theories crafted by attorneys like John Eastman, Trump contended that state legislatures could unilaterally reverse the outcome and override their own laws and constitutions to do so."
Article link: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/27/supreme-court-decision-on-election-law-00103942
So there goes that idea from those very smart and ambitious lawyers Trump had-many of whom are getting disbarred for their very dubious legal tactics. They thought they were smarter for cooking up this hair brained scheme.
Remember, that MAGA often now means, "Making Attorneys Get Attorneys" is a really good take on an obnoxious slogan, and every single one of these future federal felons deserve nothing better than a few years in prison (and disbarment) for it.
Especially Giuliani-because between him and Eastman they really did try to subvert an election for Trump and failed so badly that they not only lost the election but also got pummeled by every single court in the US that heard their 'fake electors' scheme.
Rudy must have been sweating while talking to the feds-I just hope that he didn't use any cheap hair dye or shoe polish because we all know what that looks like-eww.
You never fail to amaze and amuse - and yes, with the stuff you cover, we often need gallows humor just to cope. Keep up the great work.
Good night and good riddance!
"..rumpled podcaster and conspiratorialist Steve Bannon..".🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
That's got to be the nicest thing anyone's ever said about him.
Lucian, Jack Smith reminds me of Elliott Ness shining the proverbial light in Rudy’s face. He pummels him with questions without touching a single hair on his almost bald head. Offers him a proffer, take it or leave it. Dark brown sweat beads drip down his face like rain on a hot tin roof. Rudy knows his goose is cooked. No more “Hail to the Chief”. More like “Hell to the Chief”.
And perhaps hell to pay.
So, by telling all he knows about t -Rump’s criminal activities, Giuliani will be able to walk away free? Or have I got that wrong?
Judith, you're (I suspect) thinking exactly what I'm thinking. yes, this is good news on many levels. but it completely sucks to the extent that it demonstrates yet again that there really IS a two (or more) tiered justice system.
if Rudy weren't so "important," he'd be doing some hard time now. but when the dust settles, I don't think he'll be hearing any iron gates slamming shut behind him. which sucks.
and if that prick Eastman loses his law license, he'll still be able to collect handsome fees speaking at all those (is there no fucking end to them?) "conservative" conclaves, along with all those other career criminals.
Never say never. My opinion only but I think Rudy is still facing possible charges in Georgia. I don’t see him getting off of any hook because he has been disbarred already for his actions. Hell, he should have been disbarred just for showing up with the worst dye streaming down his face!
Judith
What it means is that whatever statements he makes on that day and time only cannot be used against him in court. It is not immunity although that may be the next step.
I'm going to borrow an illustration from Andrew Weissmann to explain. If you tell the prosecutors during a Queen for a Day proffer that you stole a book from the library and left it in your bedroom, the government can use that statement to obtain a search warrant for your house, seize the book and use that evidence against you in court in a trial for stealing the book. They cannot use your statement in court however. You also have to not lie during a proffer or you can be prosecuted for that.
Thank you for the clarification.
I hope it's correct. I expect that someone like Weissmann knows what he's talking about. It didn't sound right at first but the more I think about it the more logical it seems.