Trump is human garbage. He confirms this on a daily basis. He is utterly unqualified to hold any public office, least of all that of the presidency. It baffles me how anyone cannot see these obvious truths.
Sure let's claim a double standard on the basis of a purely hypothetical situation rather than believing the judge is listening to the arguments from both sides and being, judicial.
Unless Mr. Hannity is a target of the investigation (which seems unlikely) he has a right to privacy. This looks like a gratuitous swipe at himnot just by the judge but the prosecutor.
Trump Moves to Gut the Post Office His war on Amazon expands to include the right-wing’s campaign to abolish America’s oldest—and still successful—public service.
Sure let's claim a double standard on the basis of a purely hypothetical situation rather than believing the judge is listening to the arguments from both sides and being, judicial.
It is a bit of a double standard, but I also bet the same people outraged by this double standard would be all concerned about the public's right to know had this been a scandal on the other party. Outrage seems to be very selective.
relax, no need to get bent (let me try this again)
btw, some people (tldr folks) prefer a little info with links (and you're under no obligation to read, listen or follow anything)
there's two issues i'm pointing out
first, the current system and how it is designed and used (and abused systemically) as a tool in the real world
the abuse and misuse is probably not the original intent (i'm sure it was designed as a wide net to aggressively pursue perceived criminals)
second who it is used against
a person would need to understand the concept to grasp the first, then a case(s) to illustrate it
silverglate speaks out on the abuse of that system/tool (cases that he has worked and other cases he has observed)
state laws/rules/regs are usually much more specific/defined, much easier from a legal standpoint to understand and defend/work with
federal code is much more broad and vague, essentially leaving it open for more of an interpretive case and because they work across state lines or borders, they have much more "leeway"
states usually look for clear or specific violation, something well defined first, then apply that to the suspect (a more specific definition usually requires a certain standard of evidence)
the fed's process he explains works a bit differently, not all violations are out in the open so they may have feelings, hunches or tips
as a result, they focus on a suspect/target and then work backwards (the bar for cause/evidence is somewhat easier)
one of the ways silverglate and others describe this is "ladder climbing"
if they want the mayor (a case he worked on) they look for ways to get to him, so they grab a guy on the bottom (a building inspector) and they squeeze him on small crime and they dangle fed violations and the max sentence over his head
so they ask for his boss and the incentive is to give up the guy above him (whether it is legit or not he sings/composes, doesn't matter) and now they have "evidence" or cause to work that guy, finally they get someone close to the mayor and wallah, mission accomplished
this is where entrapment (trying to create/manufacture a crime where there was none for leverage) or charging relatives or family members with ridiculous offenses and drag them in a federal investigation that could cost a lot of money and destroy lives, careers, etc.
you should get the picture, think the arthur anderson case (indicted, charged, but eventually and unanimously overturned after the company was destroyed, all of the jobs that were lost and careers snuffed) or even the clinton case (ken starr gets a long leash, alot of liberty and takes four years and tens of millions of dollars to sift through everything remotely possible to prove the president lied about having a consensual relationship with an intern) that's so ridiculous it's not even funny
"the feds could indict a ham sandwich", which makes a chuckle but there's a valid reason that judge said it
silverglate's observations that if you come under scrutiny in this framework it's almost a certainty that they will find something
usually people/companies will settle because of the cost and risk of pursuing cases and the feds get a nice fine (for their coffers) and the signal is echoed again, play ball or else
if not for the extreme partisanship and polarization the trump case looks like it is shaping up to be a great example or observation of this "seeking justice" run amok
my observation is that people dislike this guy so much that they will tolerate or possibly encourage this process regardless
instead of recognizing the abuse of this process as an abomination, they actually celebrate it because of the result
the consequences could set a precedent that would be disastrous (essentially weaponizing the system for political ends) not to mention a large segment of the population will see this as motivation for some sort payback
if the desired effect is to have better leadership by replacing the current occupant, i would suggest trying something legit like i suggested over in the syria thread
and focus on raising standards with a candidate for the next cycle as opposed to same stuff, different day
regards
Miamizsun,
Thank you for your post—it helps flesh out Silverglate's thinking, which may eventually have relevance to the Mueller investigation. I'm sorry I was angry towards you in my previous post; I can be pretty caustic at times and some of my words weren't kind or helpful. I try to be civil but don't always succeed, especially when I post later in the day.
I've read that Mueller is indeed following the classic pattern that Silverglate lays out—start working on low-level people in an organization and convince them to cooperate with the investigation instead of facing serious charges and significant jail time. However, it's a gross exaggeration to suggest that entrapment or unreasonable criminal charges occur in every or even most federal investigations' use of "ladder climbing". I don't know if that's what you and/or Silverglate is suggesting, but I haven't read or heard of any excessive or unethical pressure tactics by the Mueller investigation.
Even if Mueller and Co. use hardball tactics, they have to have sufficient evidence to indict. They are in the full glare of the public spotlight and any impropriety could cost them the support of the Justice Dept. and Congress.
BTW—I had to do a quick refresher on the Enron/Arthur Andersen scandal, which you mentioned. It strikes me that the federal investigation did find massive instances of accounting fraud on work done for Enron, Worldcom and other companies. The Supreme Court overturned that conviction on the basis that the trial judge made serious errors when instructing the jury.The SC didn't pass judgment on the prosecution's methods or discovery that Andersen had been conducting serious accounting fraud.
The jury was reportedly told "even if petitioner honestly and sincerely believed its conduct was lawful, the jury could convict". This is not true, held the Supreme Court. The statute they were being charged under used the language "knowingly ... corruptly persuade". Arthur Andersen managers did instruct their employees to delete Enron-related files, but those actions were within their document retention policy. If the document retention policy was constructed to keep certain information private, even from the government, Arthur Andersen was still not corruptly persuading their employees to keep said information private.
As far as I could tell, the overturning of the conviction hinged on whether or not Arthur Andersen employees knew that they doing something illegal. Frankly, I find Andersen's contention that it didn't know it was obstructing justice by shredding documents laughable. Andersen started shredding Enron documents only after it learned that the SEC was going to investigate for accounting fraud.
A lawyer for Michael D. Cohen said in court on Monday that one of Mr. Cohen’s clients was Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality and an ardent defender of President Trump.
Lawyers for Mr. Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, had sought to keep the identity of some of Mr. Cohen’s clients a secret in a court challenge of an F.B.I. search of Mr. Cohen’s office.
But after several minutes of back and forth between the government and Mr. Cohen’s lawyers, the judge, Kimba Wood, ordered that Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, disclose in open court the name of a client in question, who turned out to be Mr. Hannity.
Before Mr. Hannity’s name was revealed in the courtroom, Mr. Ryan had argued that the mysterious third client would be “embarrassed” to be identified as a client of Mr. Cohen’s.
Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the proceedings to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient legal argument to keep a client’s name secret, and Judge Wood agreed.
Would be interested to see why that was relevant to the court's proceedings. If this were, say, Bill Clinton's lawyer instead of Trump's there would be a fair amount of outrage at involving his other clients.
Well, who wouldn't be?
Yes it would be interesting.
Sure let's claim a double standard on the basis of a purely hypothetical situation rather than believing the judge is listening to the arguments from both sides and being, judicial.
Would be interested to see why that was relevant to the court's proceedings. If this were, say, Bill Clinton's lawyer instead of Trump's there would be a fair amount of outrage at involving his other clients.
A lawyer for Michael D. Cohen said in court on Monday that one of Mr. Cohen’s clients was Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality and an ardent defender of President Trump.
Lawyers for Mr. Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, had sought to keep the identity of some of Mr. Cohen’s clients a secret in a court challenge of an F.B.I. search of Mr. Cohen’s office.
But after several minutes of back and forth between the government and Mr. Cohen’s lawyers, the judge, Kimba Wood, ordered that Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, disclose in open court the name of a client in question, who turned out to be Mr. Hannity.
Before Mr. Hannity’s name was revealed in the courtroom, Mr. Ryan had argued that the mysterious third client would be “embarrassed” to be identified as a client of Mr. Cohen’s.
Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the proceedings to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient legal argument to keep a client’s name secret, and Judge Wood agreed.
Would be interested to see why that was relevant to the court's proceedings. If this were, say, Bill Clinton's lawyer instead of Trump's there would be a fair amount of outrage at involving his other clients.
A lawyer for Michael D. Cohen said in court on Monday that one of Mr. Cohen’s clients was Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality and an ardent defender of President Trump.
Lawyers for Mr. Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, had sought to keep the identity of some of Mr. Cohen’s clients a secret in a court challenge of an F.B.I. search of Mr. Cohen’s office.
But after several minutes of back and forth between the government and Mr. Cohen’s lawyers, the judge, Kimba Wood, ordered that Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, disclose in open court the name of a client in question, who turned out to be Mr. Hannity.
Before Mr. Hannity’s name was revealed in the courtroom, Mr. Ryan had argued that the mysterious third client would be “embarrassed” to be identified as a client of Mr. Cohen’s.
Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the proceedings to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient legal argument to keep a client’s name secret, and Judge Wood agreed.
Not sure if this image is public: Cohen's clients: President Elliott Broidy, fmr GOP Nat'l Cmte Deputy Finance Chair and Lest We Forget Hannity
So if we can infer anything from Cohen's activities on behalf of the first two, it's that Hannity had Cohen pay a hooker to go away.
A lawyer for Michael D. Cohen said in court on Monday that one of Mr. Cohen’s clients was Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality and an ardent defender of President Trump.
Lawyers for Mr. Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, had sought to keep the identity of some of Mr. Cohen’s clients a secret in a court challenge of an F.B.I. search of Mr. Cohen’s office.
But after several minutes of back and forth between the government and Mr. Cohen’s lawyers, the judge, Kimba Wood, ordered that Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, disclose in open court the name of a client in question, who turned out to be Mr. Hannity.
Before Mr. Hannity’s name was revealed in the courtroom, Mr. Ryan had argued that the mysterious third client would be “embarrassed” to be identified as a client of Mr. Cohen’s.
Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the proceedings to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient legal argument to keep a client’s name secret, and Judge Wood agreed.
relax, no need to get bent (let me try this again)
btw, some people (tldr folks) prefer a little info with links (and you're under no obligation to read, listen or follow anything)
there's two issues i'm pointing out
first, the current system and how it is designed and used (and abused systemically) as a tool in the real world
the abuse and misuse is probably not the original intent (i'm sure it was designed as a wide net to aggressively pursue perceived criminals)
second who it is used against
a person would need to understand the concept to grasp the first, then a case(s) to illustrate it
silverglate speaks out on the abuse of that system/tool (cases that he has worked and other cases he has observed)
state laws/rules/regs are usually much more specific/defined, much easier from a legal standpoint to understand and defend/work with
federal code is much more broad and vague, essentially leaving it open for more of an interpretive case and because they work across state lines or borders, they have much more "leeway"
states usually look for clear or specific violation, something well defined first, then apply that to the suspect (a more specific definition usually requires a certain standard of evidence)
the fed's process he explains works a bit differently, not all violations are out in the open so they may have feelings, hunches or tips
as a result, they focus on a suspect/target and then work backwards (the bar for cause/evidence is somewhat easier)
one of the ways silverglate and others describe this is "ladder climbing"
if they want the mayor (a case he worked on) they look for ways to get to him, so they grab a guy on the bottom (a building inspector) and they squeeze him on small crime and they dangle fed violations and the max sentence over his head
so they ask for his boss and the incentive is to give up the guy above him (whether it is legit or not he sings/composes, doesn't matter) and now they have "evidence" or cause to work that guy, finally they get someone close to the mayor and wallah, mission accomplished
this is where entrapment (trying to create/manufacture a crime where there was none for leverage) or charging relatives or family members with ridiculous offenses and drag them in a federal investigation that could cost a lot of money and destroy lives, careers, etc.
you should get the picture, think the arthur anderson case (indicted, charged, but eventually and unanimously overturned after the company was destroyed, all of the jobs that were lost and careers snuffed) or even the clinton case (ken starr gets a long leash, alot of liberty and takes four years and tens of millions of dollars to sift through everything remotely possible to prove the president lied about having a consensual relationship with an intern) that's so ridiculous it's not even funny
"the feds could indict a ham sandwich", which makes a chuckle but there's a valid reason that judge said it
silverglate's observations that if you come under scrutiny in this framework it's almost a certainty that they will find something
usually people/companies will settle because of the cost and risk of pursuing cases and the feds get a nice fine (for their coffers) and the signal is echoed again, play ball or else
if not for the extreme partisanship and polarization the trump case looks like it is shaping up to be a great example or observation of this "seeking justice" run amok
my observation is that people dislike this guy so much that they will tolerate or possibly encourage this process regardless
instead of recognizing the abuse of this process as an abomination, they actually celebrate it because of the result
the consequences could set a precedent that would be disastrous (essentially weaponizing the system for political ends) not to mention a large segment of the population will see this as motivation for some sort payback
if the desired effect is to have better leadership by replacing the current occupant, i would suggest trying something legit like i suggested over in the syria thread
and focus on raising standards with a candidate for the next cycle as opposed to same stuff, different day
regards
It's tough to feel sorry for Trump when he brought this all on himself. I assume that, if he was smart, he would have stuck to the story that Comey was incompetent and he had the ammunition he needed in the form of letters that were drafted by Sessions and Rod Rosenstein laying out their recommendations for firing. He blew all that up by admitting that it was the unfair Russia collusion investigation that prompted him to fire Comey. That then ultimately led to the instigation of a special counsel appointment. If he had stuck to the script, this may never have transpired.
You are talking about the fairness of special counsel's ability to cast a wide net. Too late now... the horses have long ago left the barn and Trump's bed is made. 'Nite Donny.
No, I didn't listen to the goddamned interview. I read the piece you pointed us to: I thought it would be more substantive and appropriate to the subject than the interview. How much time do you expect people to spend on this pet notion of yours when you can't even be bothered to concisely summarize Silverglate's thoughts and apply it to federal election laws and the actions of Trump's campaign?
Look: you tossed up Silverglate's generalized assertion that federal criminal law is so vague and sprawling—and federal prosecutors are so hell-bent on winning convictions—that those prosecutors are bound to find behavior that could be interpreted as criminal or illegal. You bring this up like it's some perfect catch-all to cast doubt on anything a special prosecutor might do or find.
I tried to bring the discussion back to the specifics of Mueller and Trump. I pointed out to you that federal election law is not a fog-covered, trap-filled maze. That Trump's campaign and the Republican party have many, many lawyers versed in campaign law who could guide Trump and his inner circle away from potential illegal activity. That most American elections and politicians don't have special prosecutors crawling up their ass. Let's stop pretending that Trump and/or Co. will inevitably face indictment because the laws are too, too tough to figure out and those prosecutors are vicious blue meanies. This is like the dog-ate-my-homework from elementary school. And do you seriously expect any of us to listen to Silverglate for 30+ minutes, hoping that he might make some points that could be relevant to Mueller's investigations?
If you think Silverglate does have something relevant to add to the subject, post THE DETAILS in your own words. At this point, you are completely turning me off from your favorite honk.
relax, no need to get bent (let me try this again)
btw, some people (tldr folks) prefer a little info with links (and you're under no obligation to read, listen or follow anything)
there's two issues i'm pointing out
first, the current system and how it is designed and used (and abused systemically) as a tool in the real world
the abuse and misuse is probably not the original intent (i'm sure it was designed as a wide net to aggressively pursue perceived criminals)
second who it is used against
a person would need to understand the concept to grasp the first, then a case(s) to illustrate it
silverglate speaks out on the abuse of that system/tool (cases that he has worked and other cases he has observed)
state laws/rules/regs are usually much more specific/defined, much easier from a legal standpoint to understand and defend/work with
federal code is much more broad and vague, essentially leaving it open for more of an interpretive case and because they work across state lines or borders, they have much more "leeway"
states usually look for clear or specific violation, something well defined first, then apply that to the suspect (a more specific definition usually requires a certain standard of evidence)
the fed's process he explains works a bit differently, not all violations are out in the open so they may have feelings, hunches or tips
as a result, they focus on a suspect/target and then work backwards (the bar for cause/evidence is somewhat easier)
one of the ways silverglate and others describe this is "ladder climbing"
if they want the mayor (a case he worked on) they look for ways to get to him, so they grab a guy on the bottom (a building inspector) and they squeeze him on small crime and they dangle fed violations and the max sentence over his head
so they ask for his boss and the incentive is to give up the guy above him (whether it is legit or not he sings/composes, doesn't matter) and now they have "evidence" or cause to work that guy, finally they get someone close to the mayor and wallah, mission accomplished
this is where entrapment (trying to create/manufacture a crime where there was none for leverage) or charging relatives or family members with ridiculous offenses and drag them in a federal investigation that could cost a lot of money and destroy lives, careers, etc.
you should get the picture, think the arthur anderson case (indicted, charged, but eventually and unanimously overturned after the company was destroyed, all of the jobs that were lost and careers snuffed) or even the clinton case (ken starr gets a long leash, alot of liberty and takes four years and tens of millions of dollars to sift through everything remotely possible to prove the president lied about having a consensual relationship with an intern) that's so ridiculous it's not even funny
"the feds could indict a ham sandwich", which makes a chuckle but there's a valid reason that judge said it
silverglate's observations that if you come under scrutiny in this framework it's almost a certainty that they will find something
usually people/companies will settle because of the cost and risk of pursuing cases and the feds get a nice fine (for their coffers) and the signal is echoed again, play ball or else
if not for the extreme partisanship and polarization the trump case looks like it is shaping up to be a great example or observation of this "seeking justice" run amok
my observation is that people dislike this guy so much that they will tolerate or possibly encourage this process regardless
instead of recognizing the abuse of this process as an abomination, they actually celebrate it because of the result
the consequences could set a precedent that would be disastrous (essentially weaponizing the system for political ends) not to mention a large segment of the population will see this as motivation for some sort payback
if the desired effect is to have better leadership by replacing the current occupant, i would suggest trying something legit like i suggested over in the syria thread
and focus on raising standards with a candidate for the next cycle as opposed to same stuff, different day
I read the Silverglate article you pointed us to and while Silverglate may have a point about the over-expansive powers and reach of a special prosecutor, his general opinions on the matter don't invalidate Mueller's investigations into Trump or the possibility that Mueller has uncovered evidence of real and well-defined criminal activity.
did you listen to the interview?
there seems to be a bit of confusion or maybe even a misunderstanding on what silverglate is elaborating on
or even in the way i posted it and my commentary
i''ll take responsibility for that and at the risk of being understood i'll try and clarify
if anyone is interested in why an attorney like silverglate (after thirty years or so on the aclu board) would tell of his experiences or explain the process of how the feds operate (which he does)
just spend a few minutes and listen very closely to what he is saying here
JFC...
No, I didn't listen to the goddamned interview. I read the piece you pointed us to: I thought it would be more substantive and appropriate to the subject than the interview. How much time do you expect people to spend on this pet notion of yours when you can't even be bothered to concisely summarize Silverglate's thoughts and apply it to federal election laws and the actions of Trump's campaign?
Look: you tossed up Silverglate's generalized assertion that federal criminal law is so vague and sprawling—and federal prosecutors are so hell-bent on winning convictions—that those prosecutors are bound to find behavior that could be interpreted as criminal or illegal. You bring this up like it's some perfect catch-all to cast doubt on anything a special prosecutor might do or find.
I tried to bring the discussion back to the specifics of Mueller and Trump. I pointed out to you that federal election law is not a fog-covered, trap-filled maze. That Trump's campaign and the Republican party have many, many lawyers versed in campaign law who could guide Trump and his inner circle away from potential illegal activity. That most American elections and politicians don't have special prosecutors crawling up their ass.
Let's stop pretending that Trump and/or Co. will inevitably face indictment because the laws are too, too tough to figure out and those prosecutors are vicious blue meanies. This is like the dog-ate-my-homework from elementary school.
And do you seriously expect any of us to listen to Silverglate for 30+ minutes, hoping that he might make some points that could be relevant to Mueller's investigations?
If you think Silverglate does have something relevant to add to the subject, post THE DETAILS in your own words. At this point, you are completely turning me off from your favorite honk.
I read the Silverglate article you pointed us to and while Silverglate may have a point about the over-expansive powers and reach of a special prosecutor, his general opinions on the matter don't invalidate Mueller's investigations into Trump or the possibility that Mueller has uncovered evidence of real and well-defined criminal activity.
did you listen to the interview?
there seems to be a bit of confusion or maybe even a misunderstanding on what silverglate is elaborating on
or even in the way i posted it and my commentary
i''ll take responsibility for that and at the risk of being understood i'll try and clarify
if anyone is interested in why an attorney like silverglate (after thirty years or so on the aclu board) would tell of his experiences or explain the process of how the feds operate (which he does)
just spend a few minutes and listen very closely to what he is saying here
