Chillicothe
Platinum Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 10,425
- 6,685
Well, given that the thread was intended by the OP to be about the Special Counsel informing a relatively low-level employee of Don Trump that he or she could be subject to indictment....so with that as the context, those who want to focus on cocaine in the WH should probably start their own thread about that under their own avatar name. That seems like a more responsible and adult thing to do.
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, with that said, let's look at the issue of the thread and the comments that specifically address it.
Three prolific posters offered the forum these views:
From what I think I know about such matters as a non-professional I would not be surprised if detectives or prosecutors will inform a low-level suspect that they have credible evidence indicating he may be guilty of a crime. May even show the suspect some of their evidence indicating such.
And then, with the intention to investigate what they think is the real source of the criminality ---the boss, the order-giver, director, master-mind, etc. ----- well, they may suggest to the suspect that if he/she shares what they know about the involvement of the 'boss' in criminality.....charges against the low-level guy may be reduced, dropped, or favorable comments made to a judge if it goes to trial.
I'd bet that such a communication with such a goal ain't all that unusual whatsoever.
So, if Special Counsel Smith believes that there are 'higher-ups' in this caper, and the low-level bloke knows stuff....well, it seems like a sound law enforcement tactic, a common one.
There's no need for "black mail", or preventing others from campaigning, or even a flawed case. I'm speculating it is routine.
Now, some here may be prosecutors, or defense attorneys, or enforcement investigators......and may think my conjecture above is nonsense. If so, I would like to hear from such professionals about prosecutors leaning on suspects to get more information.
Thanks in advance.
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, with that said, let's look at the issue of the thread and the comments that specifically address it.
Three prolific posters offered the forum these views:
From what I think I know about such matters as a non-professional I would not be surprised if detectives or prosecutors will inform a low-level suspect that they have credible evidence indicating he may be guilty of a crime. May even show the suspect some of their evidence indicating such.
And then, with the intention to investigate what they think is the real source of the criminality ---the boss, the order-giver, director, master-mind, etc. ----- well, they may suggest to the suspect that if he/she shares what they know about the involvement of the 'boss' in criminality.....charges against the low-level guy may be reduced, dropped, or favorable comments made to a judge if it goes to trial.
I'd bet that such a communication with such a goal ain't all that unusual whatsoever.
So, if Special Counsel Smith believes that there are 'higher-ups' in this caper, and the low-level bloke knows stuff....well, it seems like a sound law enforcement tactic, a common one.
There's no need for "black mail", or preventing others from campaigning, or even a flawed case. I'm speculating it is routine.
Now, some here may be prosecutors, or defense attorneys, or enforcement investigators......and may think my conjecture above is nonsense. If so, I would like to hear from such professionals about prosecutors leaning on suspects to get more information.
Thanks in advance.
