Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It would fix nothing if prosecutors are disinclined to go after other prosecutors.

Public outcry can fix that.

ETA: Prosecutorial discretion regarding political cases should be scrutinized a lot more than it is. McDonnell is a band aid on a festering tumor. Honest Services Fraud as a concept generally should be removed from the criminal code. It's too broad, almost tailor made for fishing expeditions and political hit jobs on opponents.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Withholding exculpatory evidence should be punished with a one year mandatory minimum. That'd fix a lot of this.

There was a terribly egregious case in Texas in 1987 that resulted in a prosecutor actually losing his license and spending a few days in jail for contempt of court in 2011. The legislature passed the Michael Morton Act in 2013, which requires the prosecution to turn over everything, exculpatory or not, they get to the defense. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs...f/SB01611F.pdf I think this is the final version.

The case was real popular among CLE ethics presenters when it was going on. I heard from one of Mr. Morton's defense attorneys two years in a row at one of the conferences I attend. It's a pretty fascinating case.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Public outcry can fix that.

ETA: Prosecutorial discretion regarding political cases should be scrutinized a lot more than it is. McDonnell is a band aid on a festering tumor. Honest Services Fraud as a concept generally should be removed from the criminal code. It's too broad, almost tailor made for fishing expeditions and political hit jobs on opponents.

The idea that we have prosecutorial misconduct because there aren't penalties, or because the penalties aren't severe enough, is ludicrous and naive. Police and prosecutors can away with shit because they shape the narrative and a great many people will believe their story regardless of what the defense tries to say about it. Also, they know that their colleagues are not going to be interested in going to the mat to cause trouble for them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The idea that we have prosecutorial misconduct because there aren't penalties, or because the penalties aren't severe enough, is ludicrous and naive. Police and prosecutors can away with shit because they shape the narrative and a great many people will believe their story regardless of what the defense tries to say about it. Also, they know that their colleagues are not going to be interested in going to the mat to cause trouble for them.

The idea we can change that narrative shaping process you describe is ludicrous and naive.

That statute RT cited is the kind of sensible rule-making that can significantly remedy the situation. I only advocate bolting onto it some draconian penalties for willful violation.

I get your point, but you're finding mutual exclusivity where it doesn't exist. Laying some nasty penalties and strict disclosure requirements on police and prosecutors can be done in conjunction with efforts to change the narrative-shaping powers of police and prosecutors.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Now Bannon really has his hands back on his weapons.

I might be whiffing here, but those would be...?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I didn't expect something this eloquent from a bunch of actors. At risk of heresy, I'd say the author(s) channeled the spirit of Hitchens here. Makes me miss that perma-drunk provocateur.
https://www.worldcrunch.com/opinion-...herine-deneuve

ETA: I neither agree nor disagree with this. But it's a necessary counterpoint to be considered. (And I never met anything - particularly a movement - that I didn't think was worth questioning at some level.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So you know how I have posted before about how distrust of the Obama DOJ is pretty rampant in red states, and that it's not a small part of the reason we now have Trump.

This kind of stuff doesn't help: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...and-management

Even worse, why? Not that I've followed the details in any way, but seems like a prosecution that shouldn't be all that hard.

And regarding DACA, if an executive order is entered lawfully, and by definition is entirely within the discretion of the executive, how can withdrawing it be illegal?

You don't get how having conferred a benefit on a group of people, especially in exchange for compliance with particular rules and the provision of personal information, the government can't arbitrarily rescind it?

Is there even any dispute over whether the executive can stop conferring the same benefit to new applicants (as the order this week allows it to)?

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Adder

You don't get how having conferred a benefit on a group of people, especially in exchange for compliance with particular rules and the provision of personal information, the government can't arbitrarily rescind it?

Is there even any dispute over whether the executive can stop conferring the same benefit to new applicants (as the order this week allows it to)?

So you're saying promissory estoppel can defeat executive discretion.

I'll keep that in mind during the Oprah administration.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The idea we can change that narrative shaping process you describe is ludicrous and naive.

Excellent point, but you were the one proposing a (naive) fix, not me.

That statute RT cited is the kind of sensible rule-making that can significantly remedy the situation. I only advocate bolting onto it some draconian penalties for willful violation.

I get your point, but you're finding mutual exclusivity where it doesn't exist. Laying some nasty penalties and strict disclosure requirements on police and prosecutors can be done in conjunction with efforts to change the narrative-shaping powers of police and prosecutors.

To make a difference, I think you need someone whose job it is to go after bad cops and prosecutors, and who is sufficiently insulated from the rest of them to be independent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I didn't expect something this eloquent from a bunch of actors. At risk of heresy, I'd say the author(s) channeled the spirit of Hitchens here. Makes me miss that perma-drunk provocateur.
https://www.worldcrunch.com/opinion-...herine-deneuve

ETA: I neither agree nor disagree with this. But it's a necessary counterpoint to be considered. (And I never met anything - particularly a movement - that I didn't think was worth questioning at some level.)

Hard for me to tell who or what they think they are responding to. Sounds like they are anti-anti-harassment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

And regarding DACA, if an executive order is entered lawfully, and by definition is entirely within the discretion of the executive, how can withdrawing it be illegal?

Because the rationale was (according to the judge) wrong. If the President said, this is bad policy so I am deciding to change it, that would be one thing. The President did not say that. He said, it's illegal. So the judge didn't consider the question of the executive's discretion, just the legality.

That, at least, is what I understand from reading exchanges on #appellatetwitter from lawyers pro and con.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So you're saying promissory estoppel can defeat executive discretion.

FWIW, I don't think Adder has that right.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thanks for this link. I had seen other articles that didn't explain what the misconduct was.

Attributing this to "the Obama DOJ" seems wrong to me. The article (and the Wooten memo) specifically attribute a lot of misconduct to the BLM, which is part of the Interior Department, an agency not really staffed by Obama fans.* Likewise the FBI. And it looks like the DOJ attorneys involved were out of Nevada, not DC. If we have Trump because of this sort of distrust of Obama, that says a lot more about those red states than it does about Obama or the DOJ.

* eta: A lot of conservatives got all exercised by Eric Holder. Not many seemed to know who Sally Jewell was. One might suggest that this has something to do with the color of their respective skins, but I am old enough to remember who exercised conservatives got by Janet Reno, so I think the point here is that conservatives get all exercised about Democratic Attorneys General, even for things that other people do. This phenomenon awaits a better unpacking.

I am somewhat familiar with these prosecutions. The take by NV attorneys is that AUSA Myrre is an unsupervised, out-of-control prick who continually ignores Constitutional restraints, and that even Judge Navarro bent over backwards to accommodate the gubmint, but finally got fed up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hard for me to tell who or what they think they are responding to. Sounds like they are anti-anti-harassment.

I'm not really certain of the whole point either. I think there's a cultural context that doesn't transfer entirely in the translation.

But I do see it kicking the door open for a broader conversation about what is and isn't harassment, and our limited capacity to fully escape our biology.

Personally, I think the simple fix for all of this stuff would be taking the "duty to initiate" away from men and giving it entirely to women. And this would work, really well.

Consider:

1. Men are generally lazy (We don't want to do the hard work of introducing ourselves to women. We want to drink, eat, hang out at the bar. It's work to start chatting up a person you don't know.)
2. Women are the deciders in relationships (In a system where the woman initiates, she's already decided she's interested. She doesn't have to suffer conversations with guys in whom she has no interest. And the guys who'd waste both hers and their own time in futile efforts are precluded from doing so.)
3. It shifts the power dynamic (Women can and should take control. Why are men privileged to be the ones typically initiating things?)
4. It's sexy (I've got 000.0000 interest in a woman I know wants my attention and is seeking to get it passively. OTOH, a woman walking right up to you and making it known is ridiculously hot.)

Guys have been the pursuing sex in hetero relationships for way too long, and we've clearly fucked it up, really fucking badly. For our own good as well as theirs, we should give the wheel to the women. It's a win/win, and everybody's happy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

AUSA Myrre is an unsupervised, out-of-control prick who continually ignores Constitutional restraints

Was he a political appointee, or was he career staff who was the acting AUSA pending a Trump appointment? Does he have any relationship with Obama?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not really certain of the whole point either. I think there's a cultural context that doesn't transfer entirely in the translation.

But I do see it kicking the door open for a broader conversation about what is and isn't harassment, and our limited capacity to fully escape our biology.

Personally, I think the simple fix for all of this stuff would be taking the "duty to initiate" away from men and giving it entirely to women. And this would work, really well.

Consider:

1. Men are generally lazy (We don't want to do the hard work of introducing ourselves to women. We want to drink, eat, hang out at the bar. It's work to start chatting up a person you don't know.)
2. Women are the deciders in relationships (In a system where the woman initiates, she's already decided she's interested. She doesn't have to suffer conversations with guys in whom she has no interest. And the guys who'd waste both hers and their own time in futile efforts are precluded from doing so.)
3. It shifts the power dynamic (Women can and should take control. Why are men privileged to be the ones typically initiating things?)
4. It's sexy (I've got 000.0000 interest in a woman I know wants my attention and is seeking to get it passively. OTOH, a woman walking right up to you and making it known is ridiculously hot.)

Guys have been the pursuing sex in hetero relationships for way too long, and we've clearly fucked it up, really fucking badly. For our own good as well as theirs, we should give the wheel to the women. It's a win/win, and everybody's happy.

I completely agree, for once.

Okay, well, maybe not the lazy part, but I totally agree what we need is a society in which women are fully empowered to be sexual.

What we have is a society in which men are supposed to want sex and women are not, suffering significant stigma if they do (maybe less than the recent past now?). It makes for an ugly cocktail.