Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

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

Distinction without a difference. Trump is merely the ultimate insider. If I can get a favor by having the President tweet, or I can get a favor because my criminal lawyer used to work with the people at justice and uses the connection to plead my case and milk his goodwill with my investogators in advance, where other defendants would not have a chance to stop a case against them until it was too late, what's the difference? Influence is influence is influence. You're getting hung up on the word "political."

Scooter Libby had influence. Marc Rich had influence. Roger Stone has a friend with some influence. And in each instance, that influence was applied post-conviction. Are you quibbling with the fact that Stone is getting a favor before sentencing where Rich and Libby had Presidents simply commute or pardon them post-sentence? Seems a pretty academic difference to be citing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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?

I can't believe someone is mansplaining to me how decisions are made within DOJ and it's not Hank. But, do go on.

Are you aware of any other instance in which someone at the White House has ever directed someone at DOJ to change the government's position in a pending criminal matter? Bonus points if there was a personal connection between the person in the White House and the defendant.

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.

The last sentence is the funniest thing you have said here in a long, long time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Take it up with Less, because the two of you believe different things.

The reason we don't have simple majority rule is because a bunch of people who are dead now agreed on a Constitution more than two hundred years ago, and for various reasons and in various ways it gave more power to some people than to others. Majority rule was not on the table. The system has evolved since then, and is significantly more democratic now than it was then. Nonetheless, giving more power to some people means that others have to give it up. Sometimes they don't agree and it takes force, which is why we had a civil war and then later Army troops in public schools. Sometimes they agree. Suffrage didn't take another civil war. But don't pretend that that our government was created by an intelligent designer. It has evolved, and it's not done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Distinction without a difference. Trump is merely the ultimate insider. If I can get a favor by having the President tweet, or I can get a favor because my criminal lawyer used to work with the people at justice and uses the connection to plead my case and milk his goodwill with my investogators in advance, where other defendants would not have a chance to stop a case against them until it was too late, what's the difference? Influence is influence is influence. You're getting hung up on the word "political."

Scooter Libby had influence. Marc Rich had influence. Roger Stone has a friend with some influence. And in each instance, that influence was applied post-conviction. Are you quibbling with the fact that Stone is getting a favor before sentencing where Rich and Libby had Presidents simply commute or pardon them post-sentence? Seems a pretty academic difference to be citing.

Everything you say here is stupid, to the point that I think you are trying to be provocative and contrarian rather than spinning something you actually believe. There is a difference between a commutation and a pardon, and what Trump has done. We all understand. If Trump wants to pardon Stone, he can. What Trump wants is to manipulate the criminal justice system so that it lets his people off. And he surely cares not only about Stone, but about what DOJ does with other people close to him who have criminal exposure.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Distinction without a difference. Trump is merely the ultimate insider. If I can get a favor by having the President tweet, or I can get a favor because my criminal lawyer used to work with the people at justice and uses the connection to plead my case and milk his goodwill with my investogators in advance, where other defendants would not have a chance to stop a case against them until it was too late, what's the difference?

One is an abuse of power and of the public trust and the other is an adversarial system of justice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

One is an abuse of power and of the public trust and the other is any adversarial system of justice.

If you can get to the people looking into you and use influence or relationship to avoid the adversary system, you are not engaging an adversarial process. You are subverting it.

Also, politics often influences decisions to go after someone or not.* Most luridly in public corruption cases.

And so if politics is factored into any prosecutorial decision, in order to have a “just” system, it must be allowed to be equally available to all defendants/targets. So if Stone cannot get what Rich and Libby received, is he not being unfairly precluded from the form of “justice” they enjoyed?

You’re fixating on timing and stage of process. I’m saying that’s immaterial. How and when you use politics (subtle use of relationships and getting the chance to kill an investigation before it goes too far are political moves for which some well connected lawyers are quite well paid) to acquire a “pass” and when the pass is delivered means nothing. All that matters is the binary question: Did you get the pass?

You see a perversion of a process and its instrumentality. I get it. I actually agree with you there. But this system is already perverted, and has been forever in regard to political cases. So I don’t see much damage here. You can’t place in peril the integrity of a system the integrity of which is rightly, based on obvious known facts, already doubted by many if not most citizens.

____
* Judge Sullivan even noted this in Manafort’s case, stating Manafort would not have even been in court but for the prosecutors’ desire to investigate his boss, Trump. And while Meuller admirably kept things non-political, many of his deputies were quite political and frustrated at not getting what they seemed to think they’d find.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Everything you say here is stupid, to the point that I think you are trying to be provocative and contrarian rather than spinning something you actually believe. There is a difference between a commutation and a pardon, and what Trump has done. We all understand. If Trump wants to pardon Stone, he can. What Trump wants is to manipulate the criminal justice system so that it lets his people off. And he surely cares not only about Stone, but about what DOJ does with other people close to him who have criminal exposure.

If Trump can step on anything the crim justice system does with a pardon, how is he not already in control of the system?

I see a reflexive immature man ranting on Twitter. I see Barr’s fingers all over this, not Trump’s. This is Barr’s message to those he sees unaligned with how he wants to do things.

This “Trump is a puppet master” theme is a bit rich. He hasn’t the bandwidth upstairs. Barr is the Dick Cheney here.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’re fixating on timing and stage of process.

No, I'm saying that an elected official acting in his own interest to influence prosecutorial decisions is qualitatively different from hiring a lawyer who has credibility with the prosecutor such that the prosecutor may be more open to believing your story.

Now, maybe that's because my exposure to prosecutors is limited to a subset of federal prosecutors, who in my experience, would never do a "favor" to make a valid case go away. Having the prosecutor believe you when you try to show that the case is immaterial or your guy was just a dupe that didn't know what he was involved with isn't corruption.

Rather than viewing what the president did as no different than another from of corruption and thus acceptable, maybe you should find both forms equally outrageous?

So I don’t see much damage here. You can’t place in peril the integrity of a system the integrity of which is rightly, based on obvious known facts, already doubted by many if not most citizens.

It's extraordinary that you think the president doing something that, to the extent it's happened in the past, was at minimum a big scandal (allegations of Reagan influencing antitrust cases) or impeachment (Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre) is now just ordinary course.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If Trump can step on anything the crim justice system does with a pardon, how is he not already in control of the system?

What are checks and balances, anyway?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If Trump can step on anything the crim justice system does with a pardon, how is he not already in control of the system?

"How can the President obstruct justice? He IS justice!"

Suppose I have a dog. It's not a very well-trained dog, and it protects my house, but sometimes it bites me. I want to make the dog obey me all the time, so I take it to a vet, and the vet tells me that it can put the dog to sleep for me. I say, but that's not what I want -- I want to make the dog to what I want it to, not kill it. The vet says, don't you see? If you can kill the dog, how are you not in control of it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And hopefully, this case creates a further push for greater justice reform.

Good news, Sebby! The President is going to create a further push to reform the way juries work too!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Good news, Sebby! The President is going to create a further push to reform the way juries work too!

Beautiful. This is simply beautiful.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This case is unfolding like one of the funniest dark political comedies of all time.

This moron just did more damage to the prosecution than Barr.

But hey, she gets her 15 minutes of fame!

And Stone’s defense counsel gets to explain why they should not be subject to a claim of insufficiency of counsel. How in the hell did she get on a jury in this case?

ETA: Here is the transcript where the foreperson allegedly says she would not allow her political views to infect her decision making, and that she did not pay much attention to the Russia investigation, both of which are contradicted by her social media: https://www.scribd.com/document/4469...ipt-Nov-5-2019

I have not read it in detail, but offer it as a helping hand to Ty, who will want to parse this down to the most ridiculous points to argue that her selection and involvement in this trial was totally appropriate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This case is unfolding like one of the funniest dark political comedies of all time.

This moron just did more damage to the prosecution than Barr.

But hey, she gets her 15 minutes of fame!

And Stone’s defense counsel gets to explain why they should not be subject to a claim of insufficiency of counsel. How in the hell did she get on a jury in this case?

ETA: Here is the transcript where the foreperson allegedly says she would not allow her political views to infect her decision making, and that she did not pay much attention to the Russia investigation, both of which are contradicted by her social media: https://www.scribd.com/document/4469...ipt-Nov-5-2019

I have not read it in detail, but offer it as a helping hand to Ty, who will want to parse this down to the most ridiculous points to argue that her selection and involvement in this trial was totally appropriate.

We hit an iceberg, and you keep posting about deck chairs. I'm not interested in arguing about the deck chairs with you. They are a diversion from what matters.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Every word of this:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rtment-952253/