Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34634
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Overall, this whole thing is pretty stunning. Not only the fraud, but I can't remember a case where the government jumped into action so quickly. Not even a year ago, FTX cratered, the government figured it out, got every single lower-level exec to plead and give evidence and got this dipshit indicted, tried, and convicted in under a year. And the defendant a white guy with resources. Extraordinary. Seems to be a just result, but it's also a little frightening when you think about it.
  2. I am. Absolutely. Our courts should err on the side of protecting us from the criminal investigative and prosecution power of the government every single time, regardless of the identity of the defendant or the grievousness of the crimes. The usual suspects up at 1 First Street, NE have some of these rights under assault even as we speak. We don't need the ostensible good guys doing it too in a case of expediency because we believe the cause to be righteous. This is the "good guys" version of leopards eating faces. But most of all, people objecting to Trump's legal team receiving information about the classified documents aren't making any specific objection related to the likelihood of his conviction. Doing this right, erring on the side of disclosure, is not going to get him acquitted. It is, however, going to make it easier to affirm any conviction on appeal if the courts err in his favor, rather than the government's.
  3. Definitely a little odd and kind of gratuitous. In a criminal case, I think it would be against most local rules to comment on pending litigation like that, but things are a little less cautious surrounding civil cases.
  4. From the sentencing standpoint, any federal financial crime takes into account the "loss" caused by the crime. Any recoupment of losses occurring after the "detection" of the crime doesn't reduce the loss number, which can significantly influence the guideline range for sentencing. The idea being anything "paid back" after the defendant is caught is not worthy of consideration. So, this would have no effect on SBF's sentencing guideline range. In the case of a bank or mortgage fraud, assuming there was no default and associated loss prior to detection, there would be no loss. So, using the Trump example, there's no loss figure currently relevant. A subsequent default on a fraudulently obtained loan might well create a loss number and any effort to pay that back would not reduce it. But, Tish James is not attempting to prove that kind of fraud, it's different and not reliant on any bank or insurer being actually deceived in issuing the loan. In fact, the penalty she seeks is unjust enrichment, the amount Trump gained by the fraud rather than any actual loss incurred by the "victims."
  5. It would be massively interesting to get an in-depth interview with her clerks from this period at some point in the future.
  6. Well, I am/was raised one, as you probably are aware. But, it's pretty straight up AA/recovery moral psychology, perhaps subconsciously filtered. The closest ancestor to AA was something called The Oxford Group, far more overtly Christian than AA and not actually directed at dealing with addiction, but rather a more practical Christianity than typically practiced at most churches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Group It does not appear to have been in any way Wesleyan in orientation. As mentioned above, Wilson and Smith distilled useful principles from Oxford Group's explicitly Christian teachings (although non-denominational), and made it about as secular as they could in mid 30s America. The Big Book is still rife with references to God, but more as a convenient shorthand that remains unfortunately off-putting to a lot of newcomers that are looking for any excuse to avoid AA.
  7. For the record, I'm not personally advocating that Trump see them himself. I think it's probably important that his lawyers see them to some extent. It's not like going out and doing something illicit with them is penalty-free at this stage. The lawyers have security clearances and are subject to the usual penalties and most of much of this stuff can't be removed from a SCIF or other secured facility (in stark contrast to how this stuff seems to be handled around the White House). And there's also the "cat of out the bag problem." Ostensibly Trump has already seen this stuff and done whatever he did with it. So, it's not really that absurd to grant him, or certainly his lawyers, some access to the materials under closely controlled conditions. If he hadn't already seen this stuff, seems like maybe his guilt is a bit in doubt, no? But the other issue here is what Trump/his lawyers get to see is what gets shown to the jury. Whatever that is needs to be sufficient to convince a jury that he violated the statute by impermissibly handling information relating to the national defense. Because the offense doesn't deal specifically with "classified information," it's probably insufficient to just wave around a bunch of documents and tell the jury "see that stamp"? There has to be some information or testimony to indicate that is is in fact information relating to the national defense. And that's probably going to take more than a witness saying, "well it's classified, of course it relates to national defense" or "I've read it in its entirety and can tell you that it relates to the national defense, but I can't tell you what it says." How the hell can you cross-examine that guy? This is where it starts to become "take our word for it." Constitutionally, we don't really want the government to be able to just say "take our word for it," but more practically important is there has to be enough to sustain a conviction by convincing the jury that this wasn't just Putin's brownie recipe with a bunch of ominous stamps on it (a bit of a joke).
  8. Also, very traditional prayer can/does include statements of gratitude (which is something probably everyone can exhibit more of or spend more thought-time on). And, yes, during these times of meditation and prayer, where the outside world is "excused" for a moment, the answer to the prayer becomes apparent, or maybe soon thereafter. Whether that is an appeal to and response from a higher power, or just clarity of thinking that results from mindfulness is a guess subject to one's beliefs, but it practically works surprisingly often. One thing that is often not acknowledged is that even the Old Testament with all its bizarre rules and rituals and condemnation, contains some pretty decent "self-help psychology," and of course the New Testament is filled with it. Most of the texts and materials of the world's religions have similar teachings at a higher level of abstraction. Sidenote: Not prayer related, but "confession" is extremely useful at eliminating guilt that can really hold you back in life. Even trivial stuff that you feel bad about can really beat you down after a while, and sharing it with another person, or even just writing it down can give you some perspective and relief. And that is the genius of AA, Bill Wilson and Bob Smith distilled a lot of that self-help psychology from Christianity and other religions and religious help groups into a mostly secularized program that can be a miraculous cure for addiction.
  9. I mean, I get why you're mad, I guess. But you do understand the general importance in 99.9% of criminal cases that a defendant, and his lawyers, get to see all of the evidence the government intends to use against them, right? It's not "just because." It's a deviation from the constitutional standard. That's not lightweight shit that you get to dismiss because you hate Trump. We don't have exceptions to the 4th, 5th or 6th Amendments just because the defendant is an extraordinary shithead. That's why we have this CIPA thing and that's why it has to be handled with some nuance. ETA: Also, fuck your "meemaw voice" bullshit. I'm sitting here trying to explain complicated shit that has its foundation in constitutional criminal procedure. Things that protect us all from the government and that don't need to be eroded, even for a fuckhole like Donald Trump.
  10. His attorneys were required to get one at the outset. That's a subsidiary issue: it is often easier to justify disclosing to counsel only, than to the defendant himself. But the default condition in American courts is defendants, themselves, get to see everything. Any deviation from that constitutionally-required scheme can be viewed with suspicion.
  11. Because the legal issue for proof is not that it is "classified," it is that it contains national defense information. Of course the odds that a properly classified document does not contain national defense information are small. But in criminal defense, you can't leave a stone like that unturned, even if the odds of it being exculpatory are low. Any criminal defense attorney worth a shit will be fighting tooth and nail to get as much of the classified documents as possible. Failure to do so may even constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. What's supposed to happen in the Section 4 CIPA hearing is that the defense explains to the judge ("ex parte"), and maybe to the government ("adversarial"), what its theories are as to why the content of the classified document is relevant and forms an element of defense of the case, and the government explains to the judge why redactions, summaries, or substitute statements are adequate for the defense's purposes. And in some cases, maybe most, the judge can't look at the documents in their entirety either. It's a bit of a delicate thing for the judge and you want them to get it right and err in favor of the defense, in the general case. Put it this way, if the process is too cavalier about the defendant's ability to review documents that are essential to the proof of the case, it's grounds for a very solid appeal with better than average odds of reversal.
  12. Not sure anyone is saying they should get the documents themseives, especially not Trump himself, but what you propose amounts to "taking the government's word for it." Also, the CIPA processes not only govern what the defendants get but what gets shown to the jury. The government is in a tough spot in choosing between exposing sensitive material and trying to ask a jury to "take our word for it."
  13. It's somewhat stunning how a pretty small shop with some specialized expertise (theirs seems to be well-control) can build a pretty decent size operation in oilfield services. They can also vanish in the blink of an eye, by acquisition or otherwise. In any event, I don't think Trendesetter is gigantic by any stretch of the imagination. ETA: I took your comment initially as sarcasm, but I see it wasn't. Ha.
  14. I'll give you a "practical spirituality" answer. The program of Alcoholics Anonymous asks that people seeking recovery find a "higher power." For most people, that's an Abrahamic God, or some other traditional deity because that's how they were raised.. But it doesn't have to be. For addicts in recovery, the key to it is acknowledging that "we don't run this shit." We don't and can't control other people and things. It helps us and is vital to understanding our proper place in the world. For whatever reason, a pretty uniform part of the insanity that drives us back to drinking and drugging is the inability to control and otherwise deal with and accept the world as it is. We are also asked to pray/meditate and seek conscious contact with that higher power to obtain serenity and for "guidance" on doing the next right thing. I suppose that aspect of it is like any other type of meditation that seeks what the Buddhists call "mindfulness." Turns out, almost everyone with solid recovery does this. Many start going to church again, many don't, but practice meditation and spirituality in some form (spirituality here meaning consideration of the non-material world, of the soul, so to speak). Most (not all) do not become fundagelical nutbars, but rather the type of religious people that are non-judgmental, service-oriented, "people for others." Not everyone needs AA to keep from driving their personal bus off the cliff in flames. But AA or a similar 12-step program would help almost anyone with the struggle that is life.
  15. Bravo, also did your part to poison or at least maybe make some of the less brain-dead jurors think a little.
  16. We're kind of talking past each other here. The offense with which Trump is charged is 18 USC 793(d). That statute doesn't even use the word "classified information." instead it uses the term "information relating to the national defense." So, the issue then at trial is not whether he possessed "classified information," but whether he possessed "information relating to the national defense." There is a correlation in that most classified information relates to the national defense, but again "classified" is not the element of proof. Some information relating to the national defense is probably not classified. Similarly, some information that is classified does not relate to the national defense. You start with the proposition that every criminal defendant in the United States is constitutionally entitled and permitted to examine, along with attorneys, every item of evidence that is to be used against them. Got a problem with that? Hope not. So, when the government needs to use classified information to prove a criminal case, it has a problem: waive its confidentiality at trial completely, or violate the defendants' constitutional rights. CIPA tries to strike a balance there that permits the government to prosecute cases using classified material without placing it in the public record of a trial. So, a defendant and/or the defendant's counsel, are going to be permitted to examine, to some degree, the contents of a classified document in order to determine if it is, in fact, information relating to the national defense. It's up to the judge, and the court of appeals, to figure out where to strike that balance. The odds are pretty good in most of those cases that it is, but to completely deny the defendant (or counsel) access to the documents means "just take the government's word for it." And that is not the way we do things in the US of A in criminal cases.
  17. Not at all. I just felt the need to soften the "crutch" thing with an explanation. I didn't take anything you said as disagreement. Sometimes writing slows it down, sometimes it doesn't, but one of my flaws is that things I say can come off as dickish or terse at best. I felt like that was one of those occasions.
  18. I mean, that is literally one solution to the problem contemplated by CIPA. But it's not the only one and maybe not an adequate one, standing alone. Even though this involves Trump, there is some nuance here. Chutkan is having to deal with this shit with a case that on it's face has zero to do with classified information.
  19. Well, in a more general case, I'm not willing to take the government's word for it that it's "nuclear secrets," fuck no I am not. Put the shoe on the other foot. Should Reality Winner have been able to challenge whether what she took was in fact classified, or properly classified? Or even information concerning the national defense?
  20. Says fucking due process. I'm not talking about whether it was or was not classified. Or by whom or if anyone declassified it, especially the fuckhead himself. We all know that information is overclassfied in the US and some just isn't. As a general proposition, when one is accused of a crime based on the possession of a certain kind of document, one should be entitled to examine that document and challenge whether it is, in fact, properly the "certain kind of document." CIPA modifies that proposition initially by absolving the government of the requirement of disclosing in discovery classified documents, which in any other case would be required by the Constitution to be disclosed. But it also tempers it by letting the government instead provide "substituted" information, assuming that is consistent with the defendant's due process and confrontation clause rights. If no such "accomodation" can be reached, CIPA seems to require the case to be dismissed.
  21. Yeah, no one has ever said she was a very good judge. She hasn't been on the bench long enough, period, to make a decision either way. She is also fairly underqualified despite the ABA's evaluation.
  22. A defendant should be permitted to challenge the classification/national defense information categorization of the documents. Even if that defendant is a fuckhead.
  23. Addendum to the foregoing. This is complicated as shit and I'm not sure anyone has "the answer" on any of it. And that probably includes anyone and everyone posting on social media, and here. All along, in a case with 30+ classified documents at the heart of it, I have been worried that a short trial schedule legitimately would not be feasible with all the CIPA issues. And that's with a strong judge like Chutkan that has a firm grip on her courtroom and the parties, which Cannon clearly is not, other criticisms notwithstanding. Even with a strong judge, but lacking experience with CIPA, I think a compressed trial schedule might be a tall order.
  24. On the CIPA stuff, here's Cannon's ruling. I think she did fuck it up, but not 100% sure. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/202/united-states-v-trump/ The problem seems to be this. Cannon assumes that a defendant is entitled to receive all discoverable information in a criminal case. That, as a general proposition, is correct. But CIPA Section 3 says this: "Upon motion of the United States, the court shall issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States." The way I read that is that if the government makes a motion to protect against disclosure and the court grants it, a defendant is NOT ENTITLED to classified information. Then CIPA Section 4 modifies that: "The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. If the court enters an order granting relief following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the statement of the United States shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal." So, a defendant, or the defendant's attorneys alone (not sharing with defendant), may be authorized to receive redacted or summarized versions of classified information, or a substituted statement admitting certain facts about what the classfied information shows. It's not clear to me who has to make that showing. CIPA Section 6 seems to describe the procedures to implement the above. The controversy seems to be this: The government wants an order, pursuant to Section 4, that certain classified information (it's not clear what) be disclosed only to defense counsel and not to the individual defendants. Cannon seems to fuck it up by assuming that defendants are entitled to classified materials and it's the government's burden to show why they are not and why the "substitute" materials are sufficient to satisfy due process/fair trial concerns. I think that's backwards. However, Section 6 does seem to contemplate that if the classified material can't be disclosed to the defendant, or to counsel, either verbatim or in one of the substitute fashions, the case should probably be dismissed.
  25. Was he really a dick in his personal life? Seemed more part of his coaching persona than anything else. And arguably what made him great.
×
×
  • Create New...