Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Khan was pardoned. Fair enough, since it is pretty apparent he didn't do anything other than cover Musharaf's ass anyway.

I know. In my own head I was ruing that all this proliferation went on and no one was punished for it, thus the reference to a gov resort....aw, if I need to write this much to expain myself I should just get an interpreter.

But, whether we are engaging NK or not, China will be, and it is, frankly, China that can (and needs to) apply serious pressure there - the US's most useful role is to keep saying "we're not buying the same shit in a new pot, thanks" so the local actors who have some real levers to pull can do so but blame the US for the hard line. On the other hand, giving China the space to flex muscle on its own (without public talks with the US hanging around) may also be a good move since they may feel freer to be forceful if they may then be able to take credit on their own instead of being seen as a tool in a US-led effort. China wants desperately to be perceived as a responsible and serious international citizen to be reckoned with, and they've pretty clearly gotten the message that this is their big chance to show they can play with the big boys and get results.

Kind of dovetailing with my post to bilmore above, I saw some quotes last week where some Chinese mouthpieces were suggesting that since we were...not so correct on Iraq's WMDs, we might be wrong about the extent of NK's program as well. I'm not sure that really holds water in light of the harder evidence we have on NK and NK's own pronouncements, but it does seem to indicate that China might not want to deal so harshly with its neighbor.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No jail time.

I thought there were mandatory sentencing guidelines that required jail time?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I thought there were mandatory sentencing guidelines that required jail time?

On four counts, you're probably right. Dunno what the offense level for each is, but together they must add up to more than zero.

Of course, club could still be right after the appeal. I don't see her in the klink until the appeals are exhausted.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Of course, club could still be right after the appeal. I don't see her in the klink until the appeals are exhausted.

Is that how it works with federal criminal charges? You can stay out on bond until the appeals are exhausted?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Is that how it works with federal criminal charges? You can stay out on bond until the appeals are exhausted?

I think it happens pretty regularly for non-violent, wealthy offenders. She made bail; and she'll probably have some travel restrictions. Is that different from states for non-violent, not flight risks?

And with this trial, it seems that, guilty or not, the evidence and, probably more important, the legal basis for the charges was far from ample.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Sorry, that "we can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud" excuse doesn't get me very far, when we didn't even interview the guy. It may lower the threshold for believing something, but it doesn't excuse us from doing the due diligence.

On top of that you appear to gloss over that the guy we used for backup had been red-flagged by one of our own intelligence agencies, who didn't bother to tell the rest.

No, I'm not glossing over the red-flag - that comes in the "bias comment" - but, you're right, the lack of interviews, in hindsight, should have been fixed. We're arguing degrees between our positions - I'm saying you have to err on the side of safety, and you're saying, but they really erred. I think I fear the mushroom cloud more than you do.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think it happens pretty regularly for non-violent, wealthy offenders. She made bail; and she'll probably have some travel restrictions. Is that different from states for non-violent, not flight risks?

I really know nothing about criminal procedure in either state or federal court. I just assumed that you weren't free on bond for appeals but now that I think about it, that probably isn't the case for non-violent offenders.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I really know nothing about criminal procedure in either state or federal court. I just assumed that you weren't free on bond for appeals but now that I think about it, that probably isn't the case for non-violent offenders.

Depends on seriousness, too(victim impact seriousness, mainly). Janklow can't get out while on appeal - he'll serve his whole sentence before getting a ruling.

[Not Me]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Depends on seriousness, too(victim impact seriousness, mainly). Janklow can't get out while on appeal - he'll serve his whole sentence before getting a ruling.

That kind of surprised me, especially on only a 100-day sentence. Effectively there's no appeal. Although I guess he maybe can get his right to vote and to pack heat restored. And the trial court evidently denied release pending appeal.


I'm sort of talking out my ass, but it seems that high-profile, wealthy, white-collar-crime defendants rarely go to prison before exhausting appeals. I can't see the case being made for Stewart to go to jail in the interim too easily, unless there's some absolute bar.

[Not Me]

I think the outcome may have been different if she had testified.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think the outcome may have been different if she had testified.

Hindsight's 20-20. It certainly couldn't have been worse. Based on the evidence presented, the strategy seemed reasonable. Of course, given the nature of the charges, her explanation of what was going on surely would have helped.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That kind of surprised me, especially on only a 100-day sentence. Effectively there's no appeal. Although I guess he maybe can get his right to vote and to pack heat restored. And the trial court evidently denied release pending appeal.

In fairness, a big part of the reason he denied release was, "your appeal is crap".

I'm sort of talking out my ass, but it seems that high-profile, wealthy, white-collar-crime defendants rarely go to prison before exhausting appeals. I can't see the case being made for Stewart to go to jail in the interim too easily, unless there's some absolute bar.

Wealthy white guys usually go in for financial crimes. Those rank very low in the "seriousness" rating. But, I'm betting Martha stays out, the Appeals Court drops one or two counts, and she gets community service and a big-ass fine, along with various no-trade orders.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think the outcome may have been different if she had testified.

I would never put that arrogant b*** up for cross.

(Edited to add: Condescending. I forgot condescending.)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I'm not glossing over the red-flag - that comes in the "bias comment" - but, you're right, the lack of interviews, in hindsight, should have been fixed. We're arguing degrees between our positions - I'm saying you have to err on the side of safety, and you're saying, but they really erred. I think I fear the mushroom cloud more than you do.

Or you don't fear the loss of our intelligence services' credibility as much as I do.

Anyway, when I read that story I was mad at the INC, so I'll go back to thinking angry thoughts about them...