Twitter Has Made Legal Experts Of Us All

That’s not necessarily true. And the “deal” is pleading guilty to six federal felonies including sex trafficking.

— EveryKneeShallBowHat (@Popehat) May 14, 2021

I freely admit my legal knowledge is old and crusty and fading. I also freely admit I never did any criminal law practice, and know as much about it as the average TeeVee viewer. So it tickles me to see people argue with real life lawyers about how criminal prosecutions are conducted. Popehat pretty much started here with that:

Fairly typical not to have the cooperator name the co-conspirators in the cooperation agreement, at least at this stage — prevents tipping them off. You would name them in a cooperation agreement reached after charges were filed against everyone. https://t.co/QbGxW4CrI2

— EveryKneeShallBowHat (@Popehat) May 14, 2021

The problem here is all the pitfalls of trying to read legal documents without knowing what you are reading (I put scripture, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, what have you, in the same category; it's an analogous case of fools rushing in, in other words):

Remember that time that @maddow’s team interpreted boilerplate language from a plea agreement to conclude there was a RICO investigation against Trump? Good times.

— EveryKneeShallBowHat (@Popehat) May 14, 2021

Yeah, fair warning to all concerned: if you don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. Like all this talk of "Flipping witnesses," as if that's the gold standard of any criminal prosecution:

Bear in mind federal prosecutors likely wouldn’t go against a defendant — let alone a sitting Congrrssman — without very substantial corroborating evidence to support any testimony from Greenberg, who is supremely skeevy and a terrible witness.

— EveryKneeShallBowHat (@Popehat) May 14, 2021

So maybe you DON'T want to put him on the witness stand. Here's an alternative view from a "legal affairs correspondent," which, again, is not necessarily a sign of expertise:

he has to further posit that the feds have corroborating evidence, e.g in the form of testimony from the victim. Does he now try a modified mea culpa in the public arena to try to salvage his public reput? If he does, that kind of sinks him at trial, where it can be used v. him.

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) May 14, 2021

Yes, it could. It could also mean they don't have any corroborating evidence, or don't yet have enough.  It could be the DOJ just preffered to reach a deal with Greenberg rather than prosecute:  bird in the hand, and all that. You won't know what evidence they have against Gaetz until they go for an indictment, and even then, the whole purpose of a trial is to make the state prove its case. Until they do, even skeezy Matt Gaetz is still innocent. And plea deals really don't mean what you think they mean:

Because that’s not how federal sentencing works. Not driven by the number of counts. https://t.co/BAIXQr6M9v https://t.co/rT5Nhlu2KZ

— EveryKneeShallBowHat (@Popehat) May 14, 2021

Basically, my advice in such matters is: quit trying to live in the future that hasn't arrived yet. The present has plenty and enough to occupy us all.

Adding:  I freely admit I don't know what the state of the case is, but it's clearly still true the worst thing about legal practice is clients:

Excerpt from Declaration of Joel Greenberg in Support of Motion to Withdraw Plea: "When my attorney asked if I was comfortable 'doing 12 years minimum,' I did not understand that he was referring to a prison sentence."

— Mike Thompson (@passwordismt) May 14, 2021

I mean, what did Greenberg think his lawyer meant?