Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

The prosecutors argued for the upward departure for witness tampering apparently believing it was a credible threat. Stone was and is free to argue it wasn't credible. The judge would have, and will, decide. All the DOJ achieved with its revised sentencing request was to alienate its own prosecutors and undermine its credibility. But Barr did mollify his master.

LessinSF

Exactly

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He who lies or puffs before the jury risks a mistrial or a JNOV. The judge may say, “nope... you’re lying there... (or this jury is dumb and bought some bs)... fuck that.”

Here, the judge was/is free to rip the prosecutors for throwing frivolous leverage arguments at the court. The system is adversarial, but it’s not a “throw all the feces you can and see what works” process.

The DOJ is doing that which the judge should have been allowed to do.

Your comment that Credico is afraid of Stone and lying in his letter is too silly to merit reply.* Come on... that’s slumming for one of your usual insight.

Mueller’s minions are hall monitors of the worst kind. That prosecution of the Obama White House lawyer was outrageous. Thankfully, he was acquitted. Now how does he get back the million or so dollars and mental anguish over that ordeal?

Does the prosecutor say “sorry”?

Stone’s guilty. He took a dumb chance. He’s been ruined financially and will do time. Did those prosecutors really need an 8 level enhancement for what they knew was bullshit? Come on.

———
* The prosecutor argued that merely making a threatening statement is enough for a departure! How about that for fucking crazy? The limbless Knight from The Holy Grail could get an upward departure! “Now I’ve got you where I want you! Come in now for a thrashing!”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He who lies or puffs before the jury risks a mistrial or a JNOV. The judge may say, “nope... you’re lying there... fuck you.”

Here, the judge was/is free to rip the prosecutors for throwing frivolous leverage arguments at the court. The system is adversarial, but it’s not a “throw all the feces you can and see what works” process.

The DOJ is doing that which the judge should have been allowed to do.

Your comment that Credico is afraid of Stone and lying in his letter is to stupid to merit reply. Come on... that’s slumming for one of your usual insight.

Mueller’s minions are hall monitors of the worst kind. That prosecution of the Obama White House lawyer was outrageous. Thankfully, he was acquitted. Now how does he get back the million or so dollars and mental anguish over that ordeal?

Does the prosecutor say “sorry”?

Stone’s guilty. He took a dumb chance. He’s been ruined financially and will do time. Did those prosecutors really need an 8 level enhancement for what they knew was bullshit? Come on.

The fact that you care about all of this shit and are talking about it instead of the fact that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS MEDDLING WITH DECISIONS MADE BY CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. The Titanic hit an iceberg and you're worried about the damage to the iceberg.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In a crazy way, the system worked here. Stone will get fair treatment and people who act vindictively leave the system.

Yes, this is the system, working. You have totally lost your mind.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

The prosecutors argued for the upward departure for witness tampering apparently believing it was a credible threat. Stone was and is free to argue it wasn't credible. The judge would have, and will, decide. All the DOJ achieved with its revised sentencing request was to alienate its own prosecutors and undermine its credibility. But Barr did mollify his master.

LessinSF

But when the Judge doesn't listen to the "revised" DOJ position it will become the excuse for the pardon.

It's all about the tweet storm before the pardon, and giving Fox News their talking points.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But when the Judge doesn't listen to the "revised" DOJ position it will become the excuse for the pardon.

It's all about the tweet storm before the pardon, and giving Fox News their talking points.

If Trump were cagily planning the pardon, he wouldn't mess with the prosecutors at all. This is not about what happens to Stone. It's about making DOJ his personal lawyers.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Trump were cagily planning the pardon, he wouldn't mess with the prosecutors at all. This is not about what happens to Stone. It's about making DOJ his personal lawyers.

It's about all of it.

He wants to drive home to the DOJ that they are his bitch.

He wants to remind the court that they work for him, and he'll undo anything they do he doesn't like.

He wants to rage at how poorly he is treated.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The fact that you care about all of this shit and are talking about it instead of the fact that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS MEDDLING WITH DECISIONS MADE BY CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. The Titanic hit an iceberg and you're worried about the damage to the iceberg.



Yes, this is the system, working. You have totally lost your mind.

I’m hopefully going to be on WGBH Stories From The Stage soon. Filmed an episode. But I’ve been told the editing is delayed because the Station’s resources have been swamped by the impeachment, like, NWTAF? Don’t the dems know actions have consequences?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I’m hopefully going to be on WGBH Stories From The Stage soon. Filmed an episode. But I’ve been told the editing is delayed because the Station’s resources have been swamped by the impeachment, like, NWTAF? Don’t the dems know actions have consequences?

GBH stands for Great Blue Hill, in Milton, where the transmitter used to be. Use that little fact to curry favor with them.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But when the Judge doesn't listen to the "revised" DOJ position it will become the excuse for the pardon.

It's all about the tweet storm before the pardon, and giving Fox News their talking points.

Attacking the judge too? Maybe that is his master plan. But in the end, he is transparent, so let's see what the voters want. The people get what they deserve.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Attacking the judge too? Maybe that is his master plan. But in the end, he is transparent, so let's see what the voters want. The people get what they deserve.

Not always. The majority of voters wanted someone else.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But when the Judge doesn't listen to the "revised" DOJ position it will become the excuse for the pardon.

It's all about the tweet storm before the pardon, and giving Fox News their talking points.

Gotta figure the pardons wait until November, right?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But when the Judge doesn't listen to the "revised" DOJ position it will become the excuse for the pardon.

It's all about the tweet storm before the pardon, and giving Fox News their talking points.

You're assuming chess moves from a guy who barely grasps checkers.

"Me not like. Me tweet!" That's all it is.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The fact that you care about all of this shit and are talking about it instead of the fact that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS MEDDLING WITH DECISIONS MADE BY CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. The Titanic hit an iceberg and you're worried about the damage to the iceberg.

I'm not so concerned about Trump doing that. I surmise that's done by far lower people than the president every day. You understand that beating a fed case is often by getting to the feds before it goes too far and too much money is spent for them to turn around. People hire white shoe criminal defense lawyers who know people in Justice to discreetly intervene and arm twist all the time. That's interference. That's also a bit "unjust," as folks without that entree don't get a chance to do that.

How do you think Corzine is walking around?

Yes, this is the system, working. You have totally lost your mind.

I recall in the days of bringing plaintiff's cases that one could always read a few more rule books, or cases, and find additional claims to add to a complaint. And when you're a kid, it probably seems like a good idea to throw every picayune claim you can at the defendant.

But as you get older, you realize this is perceived as sleazy and it annoys judges. (Nobody wants to sift through superfluous claims, many of which merge and seek identical damages, where a few well plead and credible claims would suffice.) You think to yourself, "Do I really need that civil conspiracy add-on claim, or will that make me look like an irritating ninny?"

The argument in the first Stone sentencing memo that EVEN IF THE THREAT OF PHYSICAL HARM IS COMICALLY FRIVOLOUS AND THE CHANCE OF IT 0.000%, THE MERE USE OF ANY THREAT JUSTIFIES AN ENHANCEMENT, is INSANE. That some clerk found a cite to justify this silliness doesn't mean one should plead it. The judge heard the case. It's best not to insult her intelligence.

But the making of such an argument is also scary because it indicates a nihilist desire to win, and a pettiness, and vindictiveness, that overcomes the author's better judgment. When I'd layer up a complaint with "leverage" claims, I was just trying to maximize dollars. (For that, were there a hell, I'd perhaps deserve to occupy one of its outer rings.) These people are doing it for the purpose of inflicting draconian penalties on a person. Just Because They Can.

Forget about Stone. He's an idiot. Think of all the people doing outrageously long sentences for this kind of sleazy prosecutorial abuse, this Torquemada-hiding-behind-precedent behavior.

Trump actually said something that made sense when recently asking about the Stone case: "Rapists don't get time like that!" He's right. And hopefully, this case creates a further push for greater justice reform.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

People hire white shoe criminal defense lawyers who know people in Justice to discreetly intervene and arm twist all the time. That's interference.

No, potential targets having experienced (and even connected) counsel is not political interference in the criminal justice process. What is wrong with you?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not always. The majority of voters wanted someone else.

The majority of voters would, as de Tocqueville I think noted, vote themselves the treasury if allowed. This is why we don't allow simple majority rule.

If you doubt me on this, talk to a dozen or so average people in varied locales and get back to me.

The problem right now is we've an insanely rich and powerful minority, and a collection of insanely powerful corporations, who are buying themselves control over the country.

The fix is not the disaster that national majority rule would create. (We might as well declare the country insolvent and disband the government if that should ever become the ruling structure.) The fix is to pare the power of the companies and individuals who currently have so much power over policy. These same people have roughly the same power regardless of who is president. Oddly, populism has kicked the door open to people at least thinking about that.

What really needs to happen is left and right wing populism fusing. That would create a power bloc that could overcome corporate and insider control over policy. That's why people freak out over Bernie and Warren. They fear that someday, and soon, the right economic populists will realize the GOP is lying to them and start aligning with the more broadly accepting left wing economic populists. There could be a huge detente, a grand bargain, in which the left and right wings of populism decide to push economics to the forefront and put their cultural differences aside. Both really want much of the same thing -- living wages and decent health care. They may come together out of recognition of a shared enemy in the Top 10%, or eventually be forced to come together out of necessity. (I think that's what causes Jamie Dimon to flip flip out when asked about "socialism." We're approaching a day where more socialism is going to be necessary, and I see no way of stopping it.)