This week in lawfare
-
I heard about the story this morning on a podcast. Halligan created a new charging document which differed only by removing the unaccepted charges. Then the foreperson and one other juror were shown the new document, and the foreperson signed it. It's unclear whether the foreperson knew the document was not the exact one considered by the full jury, but there's no intent to deceive here in any case. It was a clerical error. Halligan's lack of experience probably mattered.
-
The legal commentators I’ve read are pretty damn sure. I assume he’d rather have it dismissed and not pay six figures more for a jury trial.
@jon-nyc said in This week in lawfare:
The legal commentators I’ve read are pretty damn sure. I assume he’d rather have it dismissed and not pay six figures more for a jury trial.
Small price to pay for a guy who wrote "A Higher Loyalty", or whatever his book was called which dripped with sanctimony. He should probably put his money where his mouth is, and establish how factually innocent he really is. Maybe it'll cost him some small fraction of his profits from his clout-chasing book, profits enabled by the cultural phenomenon that is Trump.
-
Maybe the legal system is way more malleable than we think, and people can in fact be factually convicted of crimes, if the powers that be would like to factually convict them. Laws are written in human language, and human language is notoriously inexact.
-
Yeah the system certainly has a bunch of slack in the line. Prosecutorial discretion, plea deals, and so forth. Lots of gray area. A President going after people who said mean things about him does not have as much gray area. Sorry, grey* area, @Doctor-Phibes
-
@jon-nyc apparently the attorney who's representing this government is rather...inexperienced. His previous position was something tax-related.
Is the DOJ going to go after all the "8647" merch on Amazon?
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=8647&crid=2U5TLYPYC1MQY&sprefix=8647%2Caps%2C182&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
I love you long time.
-
As with Trump's past life, the law is to be used a bludgeon - a tool that a minimum requires the adversary to spend a great deal of time and money in self defense. On a recommendation of John Kiriakou I've started reading this book that pretty much says if they want to come after you, you've probably done something that qualifies. Kiriakou tells the story of a woman on Hawaii who had a whale watching business. Someone posted a video of whale watching on her boat when a passenger blew a whistle. That violated a federal law - and over the next few years she essentially lost everything to legal expenses. If they want to destroy you, they can - and will. Discretion of prosecutors is not always reasonable. Another case I heard of was of a woman who when she was 10 years old was bullied by boy. In an act of revenge, she pulled down his pants on a playground. As a 10 year old, she was prosecuted for a sex crime and required to be listed as a sex criminal. She ended up having to leave the country. Even the boy involved admitted it had NOTHING to do with sex.
-
As with Trump's past life, the law is to be used a bludgeon - a tool that a minimum requires the adversary to spend a great deal of time and money in self defense. On a recommendation of John Kiriakou I've started reading this book that pretty much says if they want to come after you, you've probably done something that qualifies. Kiriakou tells the story of a woman on Hawaii who had a whale watching business. Someone posted a video of whale watching on her boat when a passenger blew a whistle. That violated a federal law - and over the next few years she essentially lost everything to legal expenses. If they want to destroy you, they can - and will. Discretion of prosecutors is not always reasonable. Another case I heard of was of a woman who when she was 10 years old was bullied by boy. In an act of revenge, she pulled down his pants on a playground. As a 10 year old, she was prosecuted for a sex crime and required to be listed as a sex criminal. She ended up having to leave the country. Even the boy involved admitted it had NOTHING to do with sex.
-
@jon-nyc apparently the attorney who's representing this government is rather...inexperienced. His previous position was something tax-related.
Is the DOJ going to go after all the "8647" merch on Amazon?
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=8647&crid=2U5TLYPYC1MQY&sprefix=8647%2Caps%2C182&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
Ken White put it this way:
No rational person could see that and say “the former director of the FBI is saying he’s going to kill the President"!”
I could now cite to you a legion of cases for that proposition, finding rhetoric far more concerning than this protected by the First Amendment, analyzing language and context to show this is protected. But it wouldn’t matter, would it? If you are a minimally rational person, you don’t need to see the precedent, and if you’re a cultist, no amount of precedent matters to you.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login