In a surprising turn of events, Stephen K. Bannon, a significant figure in the Trump administration, found himself in hot water. He agreed to admit guilt in a Manhattan criminal court on Tuesday to a single count of deceiving generous individuals. These individuals had contributed money for the cause of constructing a wall at the southern border. The main point was not the actual construction, but the money in the middle.

The plea agreement, a compensation deal between Bannon and the court, meant he would only face three years of conditional discharge. Simply put, there would be no prison time, so long as he didn't do anything like this again. The magnitude of the difference between what he could have faced vs what he is facing was debilitating. The previous four counts of crimes included money-laundering and a broader charge of conspiracy. This charge alone could have meant jail time from five to fifteen years. So his original sentence could have put this person behind bars a very long time. But, hey, this is life, there is always a mixed bag when it comes to justice.

In a courtroom, in front of the judge, Bannon had to answer a series of questions from the judge to establish he agreed to these terms. That he understood these terms. This happened in front of his three lawyers present. During this time, the trial had been originally planned to start in March.

As you look at this with a critical eye, what is a plea bargain, and why is it so common in the U. S? This saga of the border wall and fraud brings to light the complexities of the legal system. It shows how a single count of wrongdoing, especially when supported by experts, can lead to a sentence that is more favorable compared to the maximum time. Perhaps it's a new way to serve societies. It is still quite mind blowing when you think about how one person who was at one point a very influential person now has such a huge change of events which arguably seems fair.

The Border Wall Scheme: A Saga of Fraud and a Lucky Break

Actions