Forums

[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.