Just a couple of days before Rick Gates entreated into a plea deal with Mueller, he and Manafort were charged with more crimes:
This is apparently very unusual. Assembled lawyers (and laymen) of the SD, what is your best guess as to why Mueller did this?
There was a lot of conflicting reporting about Gates’ intentions in the days before his plea. He may have been waffling about taking it.
Reports on TV this evening said he lied in his statements given as part of the plea deal. That may give Mueller free reign to use any of his statements as evidence against him now. I would think he’s just putting more pressure on Gates to make sure he comes clean on anything and delivers the goods at trial if it comes to that.
Since the same grand jury in Virginia issued the indictments against both Manafort and Gates, with some of the same charges between them and many of them interrelated, it was likely easier just to present the evidence and testimony before the grand jury for both at the same time rather than going back after the fact to present the evidence relating to Gates if he ultimately did not go through with any plea agreement. Even if Gates signed a plea agreement, he could always back out at any time before pleading guilty in court and the judge accepting the guilty plea.
Pleading guilty to a crime in federal court can be much lengthier, more in-depth, and sometimes more precarious than pleading guilty in a state court. In some state courts, whether through a plea agreement or not, pleading guilty to an offense can take 10-15 minutes, with a judge mainly making sure that a defendant understands their rights, what rights they are giving up by pleading guilty, and going over the terms and conditions of a plea agreement if there is one. Dealing with the facts surrounding the crime to which they are pleading guilty to can sometimes just take a few minutes if there is not some agreed-upon statement of the facts that a defendant must admit through the guilty plea as a condition of the plea agreement. In federal court, judges will probe much more in-depth about the facts of the offense(s) for which the defendant is pleading guilty and sometimes ask the defendants if they have considered whether certain legal defenses apply or don’t apply to those offenses. I’m not sure if there is any official rationale for such an in-depth questioning of the defendant by the judge, but the goal seems to be making sure the judge is confident that the defendant fully understands and accepts what they are pleading guilty to, that they have had ample opportunity to talk with their defense attorneys about the facts and any possible defenses, and that they aren’t simply attempting a disguised Alford plea where a defendant maintains their innocence put still pleads guilty because they are convinced that a judge/jury would find them guilty by all of the evidence notwithstanding their not guilty plea and assertion of innocence.
In proffer meetings like the kind that Gates attended between Mueller’s team and his team, sometimes called “free talks,” there is usually a signed, written agreement before it starts between both prosecutors and the defendant and the defense attorneys. The agreement can vary, but usually there are clauses that state that the defendant promises that he/she will speak the truth and that any statements made by the defendant in the proffer meeting cannot be used as evidence against the defendant unless the defendant is discovered to have lied about something. Even then, lies usually won’t invalidate the entire agreement, but a defendant could be charged with lying to federal law enforcement for those specific lies (as Gates pled guilty to).
Proffer meetings lets law enforcement and prosecutors find out whatever a defendant knows about anything, whether it has to do with a co-defendant or any other related or unrelated issue, and what a defendant is then able to testify to. Gates would be a very valuable witness to Mueller’s team, though his usefulness is seriously undercut by his also pleading guilty to lying to law enforcement (and therefore, being susceptible to accusations that he is lying about anything he would later testify to). Mueller would have had to disclose Gates’ lies to Manafort’s attorneys anyway, regardless of whether Gates pled guilty to lying to law enforcement or not, since evidence of Gates’ lies would be considered impeachment evidence against Gates (that could be used to attempt to discredit him and any of his testimony) that the prosecutors obviously knew about.
The Washington Post also reports this:
A “Queen for a Day” agreement confers immunity on anything one admits to. Why he feared implicating a lobbyist and a congressman more than prison is baffling.
Unless that lobbyist and that Congressman are particularly popular with Godfather Vladimir. Unlike his orange-haired buttboy, Putin doesn’t rage on Twitter when he’s mad at you. He deploys the polonium tipped umbrella-wielders.
Also, Gates is now owned by Mueller.
The agreement would include that Gates has to answer any and every question in court or otherwise on all topics. He had his chance to admit stuff for free, so he can’t claim protection against self incrimination.
If he doesn’t, then the “Queen for a Day” material is no longer exempt from prosecution!!