The subheadline exposes itself:

GOP rebels, fueled by social media and online fundraising, feel empowered to block their leaders from cutting deals with Democrats

Leave aside the question of whether it’s ever a good idea to try to cut deals with a Party that’s bent on destroying our nation. The lede paragraph repeats the false premise:

The small group of House Republicans bucking their party leaders and pushing the government toward a shutdown would have carried a dismissive label in past years. They would be called gadflies—annoying to colleagues, and easily swatted away.

Perhaps. However, rigid party discipline is a Parliamentary process fit for Great Britain, and it’s a Party process abused by the Progressive-Democratic Party. But American political parties are not elected monolithically. Every party member is elected by his own constituents, and every Representative and Senator is duty-bound to reflect the wishes and requirements of his constituents, not those of the party leadership. Each Congressman and Senator isn’t even obligated to go along with a majority of their House GOP colleagues, as Zitner and Wise put it in their article at the first link.

These politicians’ duty is to their constituents, and to no one else. That they carry out their duty well or poorly—poorly in the present case—is a separate matter from “empowerment to block party leaders.”

Scott Hall, one of former President Donald Trump’s (R) co-defendants in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ shotgun case against Trump, has agreed to a plea deal in that case. The terms of his deal

require[] Hall to testify against the other defendants, demand[] Hall pay a $5,000 fine, and receive five years of probation.

Willis’ charges against each of the 18 (now 17) co-defendants center on allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. To be clear: Hall was one of those charged under RICO.

A RICO beef is a very serious one, a beef that on conviction involves prison terms of up to 20 years per racketeering count and/or fines up to $25,000.

Hall’s deal is a sweetheart deal second, these days, only to Hunter Biden’s erstwhile plea deal with then-ordinary prosecutor David Weiss. I have a question and a comment.

My question is a repeat of the headline of my article: did Hall sell his testimony in return for such a soft sanction for such a serious charge?

My comment is this: anyone who agrees to a plea deal is, in my opinion, an entirely untrustworthy witness. He either sold his testimony in return for a soft penalty, or he was brow-beaten into his testimony under threat of a much harsher penalty. The latter seems unlikely in Hall’s case, but under either of those alternatives, it seems to me that the witness won’t be speaking his own words on the witness stand but instead it would be the prosecutor speaking from the witness stand using the pled-out witness’ voice.