Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
55 comments

  • No. Let me get you straight before you try to put words in my mouth to paint your narrative.

    I am against prosecutors GOING BACK on the deals they've made. I don't care if the prosecutor did something wrong ON THEIR END. They are the ones who have to make sure their side is straight. If the defendant enters an agreement with the prosecutor and fulfills their end of the agreement then the govt has to uphold their end as well. The defendant is at no fault for the prosecution's mistake.

    And before you continue to try and paint your narrative I want to be clear that I'm not siding with the govt or Epstein. IDAF, Epstein is dead. But during his first conviction a deal was made by the prosecution who represented the US Govt and that deal granted immunity to his co-conspirators which was broken by someone else who represented the US Govt.

    • Again, this was an illegal deal that hurts victims and protects a guilty defendant. There is a reason why this kind of deal is illegal.

      You are saying quite clearly that you don't care if the government broke the law to protect a defendant and hurt victims, as long as they keep their word. You care more about keeping promises than you do about why the laws are there in the first place. The defendant actually is at fault here, and they are making a deal to keep their friends safe after breaking different laws. If that deal is illegal, why should it be honored? To protect a criminal?

      If I make a deal to have the prosecutor murder the person who accused me of my crimes in exchange for giving up information to convict someone more important, are you OK with the prosecutor making and honoring that deal?

      • You are clearly arguing just to argue.

        1. How is the defendant at fault? They didn't make the deal, the prosecutor did. All they did was agree to the terms and kept their end of the bargain. Literally lawyers on both sides and the one who is not a lawyer is at fault?
        2. AGREEING to a deal that protects one party from prosecution is the WHOLE POINT OF IMMUNITY. If the govt is known for not honoring immunity deals then no one will ever agree to them and key witnesses will be hard to come by in cases against organized crime.
        3. If you make a deal THEN YOU HONOR IT! The example you gave on murder is fucking stupid. That's clearly an illegal act. But the govt had their lawyers AND STILL MADE THE DEAL. Honor your deal.

        Let me guess though. You are the type of person who goes back on their word just because you felt some type of way. Enter a contract and back out halfway through because things change?

          1. It is the defendant's fault because he is a criminal who chose to make a deal that protected other criminals while stealing justice from victims. Also, the guy is dead.
          2. He made a deal on the behalf of other people, not himself. Those other people did not agree to this deal. The person who did agree to the deal is dead. The government honored the illegal deal until he died.
          3. You say my murder example is stupid because "that's clearly an illegal act." This deal is clearly an illegal act. It is illegal to make this deal. Period. Just because the lawyers agreed to the deal does not make it any less illegal. It is and was illegal. You say "honor your deal" but ignore that the deal was illegal. In the US Justice system, illegal deals are not binding.

          I'm not arguing just to argue. This is important stuff. The basis of our legal system isn't "honoring handshake agreements." There are real reasons why we have laws and don't go by backroom deals. The justice system is a deal between the government and the people to protect victims and deliver justice. Honoring this illegal deal is breaking the agreement between the victims and their government.

          And nice try making me out to the some kind of bad guy and saying I don't keep my word. What kind of ignorant argument is that? If the government said my word was illegal then I would be forced by law to go back on my word. That is the case here. One party made an illegal agreement that cannot be legally held.

          If you made an agreement to buy a car from someone, but that someone actually sold you a stolen car, guess what happens. The answer is not that you get to keep the stolen car because the person who broke the law needs to keep his side of the bargain. The person who had their car stolen gets it back (hopefully).

          In this case, one of the parties who made the agreement is dead. The other party broke the law in making the agreement. The people who are being protected by the agreement never agreed to it in the first place. So it makes no sense to honor an agreement between a dead guy and a criminal lawyer in order to protect other criminals.

          • No you are arguing just to argue.

            I never said anything about “honoring handshake agreements” as the basis of our justice system and this isn't a handshake agreement. It was literally done in a court of law.

            1. Once again the defendant is NOT AT FAULT. If you want to put blame on anyone then you put it on the prosecutor. And the reason why you claim he is at fault is the literal definition for granting immunity. Immunity means you cannot be prosecuted for the crimes committed within it's scope. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with a lot of cases that were won because immunity was granted towards co-conspirators.
            2. The govt should honor their agreement regardless of if the person is alive or dead. Would you be ok with the govt reneging on a deal if the victim died? Someone takes a plea deal and gets 15yrs, the victim dies in year 5, the govt goes back on the deal and releases the inmate. Is that ok? I bet it isn't.
            3. The deal was not clearly illegal and ONCE AGAIN THE FAULT IS WITH THE PROSECUTOR. Did the prosecutor know if the deal was illegal? The deal they made? The deal was done in federal court between the defendant, his lawyer, the prosecutor, AND approved by the fucking judge. You're telling me that of all those legal experts involved the only one at fault is the one person who isn't a legal expert (the defendant) and because those legal experts made an illegal deal that the defendant has to be punished for agreeing to the deal that all the legal experts drafted for him? Shut the fuck up. You're just here to argue.
55 comments