What’s the Deal with the Plea Deals?

Interpreting the guilty pleas from Donald Trump’s co-defendants in Georgia.

By and
58
Jenna Ellis reads a statement after pleading guilty to a felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings, inside Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee's courtroom on October 24, 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by John Bazemore-Pool/Getty Images)

Welcome back to The Collision. It’s been quite a week, and we’re not even talking about all the machinations within the House Republican conference to finally (finally!) select a new speaker of the House. On tap today: plea deals, immunity deals, and a couple of remarkable moments in Donald Trump’s civil trial in New York. Let’s dive in.

The Docket

  • As his trial was beginning last Friday, Kenneth Chesebro—a former Trump campaign lawyer—reached a plea deal with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis that was similar to the deal Willis made one day earlier with his co-defendant, Sidney Powell. Chesebro admitted to one felony count of conspiring to put forth a slate of Trump electors from Georgia despite Joe Biden winning the state. Trump and another attorney, John Eastman, are among the co-defendants in the case who have pleaded not guilty.
  • Another Trump lawyer indicted in Fulton County, Jenna Ellis, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a felony charge of “aiding and abetting false statements and writings” as part of the effort to change the outcome of the election in Georgia. A tearful Ellis offered a statement during her plea entry in the Atlanta courthouse, telling the judge she regretted her actions.
  • Moving to the federal case involving Trump’s election interference, ABC News reported this week that Mark Meadows, Trump’s final and perhaps most loyal White House chief of staff, had been granted immunity in order to testify before a grand jury earlier this year. George Terwilliger, an attorney for Meadows, told CBS News that the ABC News story was “largely inaccurate” but has not otherwise commented. Meadows was also among those Trump associates indicted in Fulton County, where he has pleaded not guilty.
  • Proceedings in Trump’s civil trial in New York ended on Wednesday with Trump reportedly “storming out” of the courtroom following testimony of his former attorney, Michael Cohen. That was just the climax of a wild day, which also saw Trump take the stand for the first time in a special hearing convened to determine whether the former president violated a limited gag order imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron. 
  • At one point during a break in the trial, Trump made a comment to the cameras outside the courtroom about a “partisan” sitting beside Engoron that the judge interpreted as a possible swipe at his clerk, in violation of the gag order. When Trump claimed he was talking about Cohen, Engoron didn’t seem to buy it, fining Trump $10,000 and refusing to budge when Trump’s attorneys asked him to reconsider. “I’ve reconsidered, the ruling stands,” Engoron said. “Don’t do it again or it’ll be worse.”
  • Speaking of, Judge Tanya Chutkan temporarily paused her own gag order in Trump’s election interference case—which barred Trump from speaking out against the judge, potential witnesses, and court workers—as the Trump legal team appeals it. Special counsel Jack Smith filed a request on Wednesday to reinstate the order. (Check out Sarah and David’s conversation about the gag order on a recent episode of Advisory Opinions.)

Please Plea Me

In the days since Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jenna Ellis entered their guilty pleas in Fulton County, there’s been plenty of commentary about what it means that three lawyers in Trump’s orbit have agreed to testify against the former president.

On the one hand, Team Exploding Fireball will tell you that this is proof that Donald Trump is about to go down. His co-defendants, after all, keep pleading guilty to crimes that prosecutors have linked to Trump himself. Of course, members of Team Exploding Fireball are usually the same people who treated every development in the Mueller investigation as evidence that the special counsel was about to release proof that Trump had illegally colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 election. 

On the other hand, Team Dud will tell you that the guilty pleas in Georgia are proof that Fani Willis’ case is incredibly weak. After all, she did charge these people with a zillion felonies worth 20 or more years in prison, and now they’re writing an apology letter with no prison time. That said, it can be hard to see so many guilty pleas and think it’s all good news for the former president. 

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
58
By and
Comments (58)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Aaron H Frank

    What the lawyers here don't talk about enough (and this is including not just "The Collision" but the flagship podcast "Advisory Opinions" is the cost of litigation. They talk about for corporate cases but not criminal defendants.

    Probation and a fine under $10,000 or years of litigation and legal bills in the six or seven figures... I'm not a lawyer but from a business standpoint it makes sense to take the plea and get on with your life. Not everyone send an email to his or her supporters and generate millions of dollars for his defense fund.

    Too often Sarah (and David with her on AO) talk about appeals as if they have no cost but we know from Giuliani and Mike Flynn that when you are facing an opponent with almost unlimited resources, you can quickly lose your shirt.

    And even if you were eventually vindicated, the is no compensation for the time and money lost.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Soniak21

    >>On the other hand, Team Dud will tell you that the guilty pleas in Georgia are proof that Fani Willis’ case is incredibly weak. After all, she did charge these people with a zillion felonies worth 20 or more years in prison, and now they’re writing an apology letter with no prison time.<<

    This is actually not that hard to explain: More than likely, Fani Willis doesn't really *care* about putting Jenna Ellis in prison. This is about Trump, and maybe one or two other his closest and more vile cronies (Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, I'm looking at you). Jenna Ellis is relatively small fry. Her testimony is of much more use than putting her in an orange jumpsuit for a few years.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Matmos

    What I wondered is what the implications are of having a felony on your record are for a lawyer. Are they likely to be disbarred for this? If so, that is a significant penalty even without jail time.

    Collapse
    1. Matt

      Does Sidney Powell really have a much of a legal career left at this point anyway? Between her reputational issues and general inability to even run spellcheck on her suits, let alone win any of them, I can't see anyone who's not deep in the MAGA fringes looking at her as a good choice for legal representation - and the MAGA crowd won't touch her with a 10 foot pole now that she's agreed to testify against Trump.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Matmos

        Good point - I was actually thinking of Jenna Ellis. But maybe they're all between a rock and a hard place.

        Collapse
  4. Brett F.

    Willis did the deals because she got guilty pleas and cooperation from small fish without giving Trump's lawyers a playbook for her case. Also saved her a bunch of time in court. Seems perfectly logical. She advanced the football.

    Collapse
  5. Mattfrommo

    "The potential problem with that theory is that there’s another reason prosecutors might pursue a plea deal. If the prosecution believes their case is weak enough that they risk an acquittal at trial, they often throw a bunch of spaghetti against the wall in the indictment—spaghetti here being charges that come with lengthy jail sentences—and hope that a defendant doesn’t want to take their chances with a jury. "

    This strikes me as abhorrent legal ethics. Charging someone with a bunch of charges that may not be supported by the facts in hopes of 'winning' conviction on something seems pretty dubious on moral grounds. The job of the prosecutor is to seek justice; unlike the job of the defense attorney which is to simply do as well for your client as you can regardless of the facts of the case.

    Collapse
    1. Aaron H Frank

      This is a pretty standard practice in the law. If you listen to "Advisory Opinions" or some other legal podcasts the impact of this is minimized if discussed at all.

      As I said in my comment - a guilty plea that results in probation and sub-$10,000 fine or endless litigation that has bankrupted people makes the guilty plea a pretty rational decision.

      That the States of Georgia or New York, for example, with their vast resources or worse, the US government that can literally print money, can do this without paying a price if a defendant is ultimately innocent is a disgrace. That the lawyers who talk and write for "The Dispatch" mostly ignore this is a big shortcoming in their otherwise excellent work.

      Collapse
  6. Rune485

    But was it true? Because rejecting the facts and substituting self-serving lies is pretty much his entire playbook. It’s the only trick he knows.

    And that’s what this case is really about.

    “…there’s very little of note that I’ve ever heard Trump say in private that he didn’t then say in public.”

    Collapse
  7. Runyan.Jason

    This is an interview with Kenneth Chesebro's attorney by celebrity attorney Mark Geragos. As a non lawyer, what I got most out of it (when Mark is not interrupting) is the proper pronunciation of Kenneth's last name (the "e" is short, like chess or met). But was an interesting interview.

    https://youtu.be/BXekL5J8X1s?si=fMPyoLGSzejfLoCW

    Collapse
  8. Khodge@rockrealestate.net

    Doesn't the fact that Trump continuing to argue that the election was RIGGED undermine his future case that he was relying on his advisors? If these advisors are copping plea's wouldn't he now need to change his tune and say "well I guess I was wrong"?

    Collapse
    1. Natty Bumpo

      Maybe he is building an insanity defense?

      Collapse
  9. Crs24

    Is it not unreal that this guy is running for POTUS, and more incredibly, leads the GOP pack? Rhetorical question alert: what the heck is wrong with these people?

    Collapse
  10. Brook

    This newsletter is imo a fair, balanced discussion of an obviously important topic. Based on what I currently know, the Georgia RICO case, brought under an overly broad statute, is ill-advised and perhaps ill-motivated as well. The notion that a defendant, notwithstanding her genuine belief in her own innocence, would take an extremely lenient plea deal in order to avoid the risk of significant jail time and huge legal expenses is not at all farfetched. The authors are thus to be commended for cautioning about jumping to conclusions regarding the strength of the testimony of the pleading defendants. (Fwiw, I do not agree with Sarah’s opinion that Trump’s private comments likely add no prosecutorial strength to the evidence that has already been publicly disclosed. On this point, we shall have to wait and see.)

    I yield to no one when it comes to harboring disdain for one Donald J. Trump. But, for me, the principle that the ends do not justify the means must take precedence over my desire to see Trump removed from the body politic, no matter the strength of the justification that my desire warrants.

    Based on what I currently know, the federal election-interference case is much stronger than the Georgia case. From what I can tell, the federal charges are not ill-motivated, but instead are fully warranted. The opprobrium heaped by Trumpistas upon Jack Smith is — again, based on what I currently know — shamefully misplaced. I want Trump to be convicted only if proof of his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. But, I would be less than candid if I did not add that I hope such proof is forthcoming. I suspect, and I hope, Mark Meadows’ truthful testimony will substantially augment the evidence of which we are already aware.

    Collapse
Load More