But asked why Maxwell was moved to a “cushier prison” following the two-day interview, Aidala said he could “talk in generalities.”
“When anybody who’s represented by a lawyer who knows what they’re doing goes in and meets with the government, there’s always a quid pro quo,” he said. “You don’t just take your client in and say, ‘Let me talk to you about something.’ They wanted information from—hypothetically, anytime the government wants information from a citizen, the citizen says, ‘Well, I have a right to remain silent. If you want me to give up that right, I need something in return.’” Usually, the exchange results in a plea bargain, he continued, before interrupting himself to ask another panelist, former Biden adviser Neera Tanden, why she was laughing.
un-beasted:
“But that’s how the whole system works!” Aidala said.
He’s not wrong. It’s always, “Quid-pro-quo, Clarice.”
I mean, it literally is. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Deals, however, are normally plea deals - where the accused agrees to plead guilty to a specific (usually lesser) charge in exchange for a known sentence. Or immunity deals, where someone is granted some level of immunity around their statements so that they will give statements which would implicate a “bigger fish.”
In this case, “I’ll make up some shit if you send me to a better prison and give me fucking work release” is a “bad thing.”
Right. Typically post sentencing, there is zero reason for a prosecutor to meet with a convict, unless they want more information after a previous plea deal.
Well it’s a good thing it’s all a Democrat hoax, huh? 😆
