Reply With Quote
Personally, no. As a journalist yes.
I do think there are problems with criminalizing information. If Assange goes down for espionage or the like, the damage to straight journalism and the accountability of power to the public could be considerable.
Ken White doesn't apologize for Flynn's lying and neither do I. He doesn't say that the prosecution is doing anything illegal. He's pointing to how the law itself is unfair. One can be against DJT and Flynn and still point out how the law is a bish.
Personally, no. As a journalist yes.
I do think there are problems with criminalizing information. If Assange goes down for espionage or the like, the damage to straight journalism and the accountability of power to the public could be considerable.
Any Democratic cheerleader that thinks long game should be grateful to Assange... those leaked party emails might be one of the main reasons Shillary hopefully will never try again to run for president and manipulate the party at will, and also hopefully will invite more transparency from the DNC.
All that said, he got played, IMO, but you play with fire, you're going to eventually get burned.
I remember comments, unattributed, and early on in the Flynn affair, by other Generals who couldn't believe Flynn had been so stupid.
Flynn was pretty ed up and detested by co-workers, so that Obama fired him,
aka, Trash's The Best People
Flynn was most probably chosen by Trash not for his competence, because Flynn, like so many others in Trash's mafiya, was connected to Russians.
Again what’s unfair about the law?
You should reread the Ken White tweet thread, because I'm not going to say it as well.
What's unfair is the watered down definition of materiality for the government that lets LE lie about the materiality of the defendant's lies, then writes a warrant that otherwise might not be sustained because the law has a beefed up definition of materiality for the defendant, whose lies are punished if they "could have" affected the investigation, when in fact they didn't. The government was intentionally "trolling for a crime that otherwise wouldn't exist".
However legal that may be it's unethical and abusive, Ken White argues.
In this case, the lies are what Flynn pleaded down to. Presumably he wouldn't have done so had not he and his son been facing more serious charges, which raises another commonplace abuse -- coercive plea deals, wherein defendants plead out to lesser charges they may not be guilty of, or which themselves are the fruit of abusive prosecution, to avoid more serious punishment.
What Ken White is saying is that there are principled arguments that *some* of what has happened to Mike Flynn is wrong, owing to the tendency of power to create justification for its own abuses. All I was saying is I think he has a valid point, not that Flynn did *nothing* wrong or deserves to get off.
Being an agent of the Turkish government and a cabinet level NATSEC advisor at once is perfectly serious business. It was also stupid of Flynn to lie to the FBI. Period, full stop.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-15-2018 at 10:40 AM.
so PopeHat and Whine Hole have discovered that the law can be used, abused for political objectives?
They believe in the actual "rule of law", of truth, justice, freedom and The American Way?
it's relevant to point that out, because the zeal to get bad guys is what normalizes the law's worst excesses.
"
Defense lawyers and civil libertarians take the side of the citizen against power.
They believe in the actual "rule of law", of truth, justice, freedom and The American Way?
Not only is it ok to stand up for the rule of law, it's a moral obligation for anyone who takes the citizen's side.
Bad cases make bad law, the saying goes.
Partisans are outcome oriented, what matters most is getting a result favorable to one's own side, but this is short-sighted.
If getting the result strengthens the hand of government or solidifies the law's abuses, so much the worse for beloved partisans when it is their turn to enter the dock.
taking cases For The People to one of the 100s of political-hacks-in-robes judges at all Federal levels installed by the oligarchy?
The oligarchy's strategy of operating the country in its favor by corrupting judiciary rather than ing around with unreliable, squishy, complicated legislatures (even those rigged by the Repugs) is as sinisterly brilliant as it is evilly effective.
ah hogwash...
The US laws have and will always favor the criminal. Ask any defense lawyer and he will admit it. It is what prevents that ONE person from being unlawfully prosecuted and risks letting off hardened criminals easy.
Remember anytime someone is accused of a crimes - it is the prosecution that must prove its case. Innocent until proven guilty.
Suddenly criminals who happen to be Republicans are being prosecuted and this entire whine industry is sprouting up all over white america that the big bad law enforcement agencies are abusive and are all just rogue criminals wearing badges.
Ding away - but had Obama and his administration done 1/100th of what this criminal administration are doing - I bet my life that all you trumpers and the entire white america racist crowd would be coronating the entire justice department.
If that is true why are trials so rare? 95%+ of criminal cases plead out.
That has more to do with just plain dealmaking and jail overpopulation.
If the statute says a crime is punishable from 5-10 years a lawyers job is to tell his client (the accused) that if he pleads he will get him 3 years and with good behavior he will be out in 12-15 months. On the rare case where a defendant is actually innocent - they will choose trial to exonerate themselves - but most are guilty and they know it - so they might about the law and the pigs and the system - but they jump on that plea deal 99% of the time.
A LIFE sentence now only means 15-16 years imprisonment with all the good behavior/jail overpopulation issues in most cases except those rare serial murders or capital cases where an entire community is outraged at the murderer.
Seems like more defendants would take their chances at trial and more lawyers would encourage them to, if the law were so heavily tilted in their favor.
see post above yours
it underscores my point and undermines yours. overcharging and sentencing guidelines give the prosecution leverage and place the defendant at an overwhelming disadvantage.
Really?
Tell me how getting a guilty bank robber and s bag - 3 years (with parole in 12-15 mos) instead of the required by law- 10 years behind bars an overwhelming disadvantage?
Apples and oranges.
You may not like the post conviction results, but in that case we're no longer talking about defendants, we're talking about convicted felons.
I'll also say that in relative terms, the notion that US criminal sentencing is lenient is laughable. Sentencing-wise, it doesn't get much harsher than the USA.
You seem to have a strong bias against the defense bar, Spurs Homer.
Are you a LEO or LE employee?
answered you before -
only on the internet!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.776bef5843e5
Interesting article - even with the contradiction that maybe plea agreements favor prosecutors instead of defendants - which I disagree with.
I will also place the caveat that race plays a bigger role - and money of course the biggest role in who the system favors.
Count me unsurprised you failed to find any evidence plea deals favor the defendant. Your bias goes against logic and the facts.
i posted an article that goes against what i believe- i just disagree
sounds open minded to me
im sure i could cherry pick and find ten that confirm my belief
ithink the disconnect here is that i fundamentally believe that the huge majority of incarcerated criminals are in fact guilty
i sense that you feel the opposite
if we are talking about people who are wrongfully accused - i would be agreeing with your premise
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
