The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Pods 7503]

11 minutes ago, deech said:

No one should be trolling him in reverse.  All it does is cluster up any semblance of a rational discussions of a topic.

I agreed with that for a long time, but trolling has become such a big problem on the internet that ignoring it doesn't really work anymore. We need to return to the social norms of ridiculing and shaming jackasses like sheeeit and keeping him chasing his own tail in a circle. 

[Pods 7503]

double post

Edited April 18, 2018 by Pods
double post

[Pods 7503]

Russian trolls from IRA confirmed on message boards

Caroline O. (@rvawonk) does a deep dive into Russian propaganda on Reddit

https://arcdigital.media/russian-propaganda-on-reddit-7945dc04eb7b

For the most part, the content posted to Reddit by the IRA accounts mirrors what we’ve seen on other platforms. While some of the content focused specifically on politics and the 2016 presidential race, much of it did not. Some of the political content was pro-Trump, some was pro-Bernie Sanders, some was anti-Ted Cruz, but the vast majority was anti-Hillary Clinton. Looking through the posts by the top 15 accounts, no pro-Hillary Clinton content was included.

All of the most popular IRA accounts posted divisive content, usually about race, guns, immigration, policing, or general anti-American sentiment. Several accounts posted Russian propaganda and misinformation about the conflict in Syria. Conspiracy theories, especially about the so-called “deep state,” were also very common, as were posts about censorship, government surveillance, and police brutality. WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden were frequently mentioned.....

(Skipping some parts)

The top posts by each of the top 15 accounts are pictured below. As you can see, the content ranges from conspiracy theories about the U.S. government to fear-mongering about immigrants, articles about policy brutality, and anti-Hillary Clinton/anti-Ted Cruz memes. Several of the top posts were cute animal pictures — a pattern that suggests the users knew how to capitalize on Reddit’s point system (i.e., karma) by posting generic content that attracts a lot of upvotes.

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Pods

[Pig Bellmont 8664]

Mueller is ready to lay charges and NY AG trying to get exception to NY double jeopardy law in case of Presidential pardon...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/nyregion/schneiderman-trump-mueller-pardons.html

*popcorn.gif (edit: the Mueller part is speculation by me)

Edited April 18, 2018 by Pig Bellmont

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Mueller is ready to lay charges and NY AG trying to get exception to NY double jeopardy law in case of Presidential pardon...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/nyregion/schneiderman-trump-mueller-pardons.html

*popcorn.gif (edit: the Mueller part is speculation by me)

Wow, that is big news.  And props to those on here who were just talking about the NY double jeopardy trap. Coming into play bigly. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Seems like there might be some ex post facto issues with that.  

[Pods 7503]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Seems like there might be some ex post facto issues with that.  

Depends how quickly they can get it passed. The pardons haven't happened yet. 

[triplehorn 2664]

 

Natasha Bertrand reports: 

Quote

 

In response to Schneiderman's letter, Cuomo spox emails: "Governor Cuomo believes that the federal legal system should not provide a basis for any wrong doers to escape justice...we are reviewing the proposal and look forward to working with the Attorney General on the issue."

2:29 PM · Apr 18, 2018

 

 

 

If there's one state that can drop the hammer on this entire WH family syndicate, it's New York.

 

[TwiceHorn 31086]

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Mueller is ready to lay charges and NY AG trying to get exception to NY double jeopardy law in case of Presidential pardon...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/nyregion/schneiderman-trump-mueller-pardons.html

*popcorn.gif (edit: the Mueller part is speculation by me)

Seriously, though, rather than good policy, even for Trump, that sounds like a Trump-Schneiderman dick-measuring contest more than anything else.

[Dutchrudder 11087]

So just thinking out loud here, are there any New York state jobs up for reelection this year that could be used to hinder that investigation. NY Governor is likely to stay Cuomo, but could that office meddle at all? Could an inexperienced Cynthia Nixon get elected and fuck things up? Could the lt governor or any other positions do anything?

[Pods 7503]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seriously, though, rather than good policy, even for Trump, that sounds like a Trump-Schneiderman dick-measuring contest more than anything else.

It good policy to change. You shouldn't be exempt from state charges because the president pardons you for federal charges. Two totally separate systems and should be treated as such. Trump and his associates shouldn't be able to violate NY law with impunity just because he is president. 

[TwiceHorn 31086]

58 minutes ago, Pods said:

It good policy to change. You shouldn't be exempt from state charges because the president pardons you for federal charges. Two totally separate systems and should be treated as such. Trump and his associates shouldn't be able to violate NY law with impunity just because he is president. 

That's the default rule everywhere else: Federal or another state's conviction or acquittal does not bar retrial for the same offense in this jurisdiction.  Pardons are of no effect.

NY apparently made a decision some time ago not to abide by the default, dual-sovereignty rule.  Further, the NY law, by its terms, applies to "prosecutions" not convictions or acquittals, which is where jeopardy normally attaches.  So they went about as far 180 as you can go.  I'm not sure making a "pardon" exception, for either federal or another state's pardon, is consistent with the original intent of the NY law.

And I am rather suspicious of changes in law driven by Trump-gate.  Bad facts make bad law, yknow.

 

For the record, I don't like the "dual sovereignty" rule in double jeopardy, but I think it should only attach after conviction or acquittal or a dismissal with prejudice against the state.  Under my preference, a federal conviction, acquittal or dismissal (with prejudice), or one in any state, would prevent another trial in any US jurisdiction.  A pardon would not affect it:  if there was a conviction, acquittal, or dismissal, jeopardy attaches.  If the pardon comes before that event, it doesn't.

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Pig Bellmont 8664]

That’s a lot of words defending an unintended result of the double jeopardy legislation. There is 0% chance the legislature considered the possibility of a presidential pardon being abused to get associates/family members/stakeholders of the President’s businesses off the hook for crimes committed. Permitting state prosecution ensures that no one is above the law. 

Arguing otherwise makes you sound like a douche

[hobbes2702 12769]

5 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

That’s a lot of words defending an unintended result of the double jeopardy legislation. There is 0% chance the legislature considered the possibility of a presidential pardon being abused to get associates/family members/stakeholders of the President’s businesses off the hook for crimes committed. Permitting state prosecution ensures that no one is above the law. 

Arguing otherwise makes you sound like a douche

Fucking this

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Trump allies press Rosenstein in private meeting in latest sign of tensions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-allies-press-rosenstein-in-private-meeting-in-latest-sign-of-tensions/2018/04/18/ae2e2fd6-433b-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html

 

Two of President Trump’s top legislative allies met with Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein this week to press him for more documents about the conduct of law enforcement officials involved in the Russia probe and the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, according to three people who were not authorized to speak publicly about the discussion.

Rosenstein’s meeting at his office Monday with Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) came days after Meadows, an influential Trump confidant, warned Rosenstein that he could soon face impeachment proceedings or an effort to hold him in contempt of Congress if he did not satisfy GOP demands for documents.

Trump and Meadows spoke at some point after the meeting, the three people said, but they declined to share details of the exchange.

The visit by Meadows and Jordan — leading members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus — is the latest sign of the rising tensions between Trump’s inner circle and the Justice Department. Rosenstein, a veteran prosecutor, is confronting a torrent of criticism from Republicans and an uncertain future that puts special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia probe at risk.

In recent days, Trump has seethed over the FBI’s raid last week on the home, office and hotel room of his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, which Rosenstein approved. He has also taken note of conservative commentators who have called for Rosenstein to be fired, according to two administration officials who were not authorized to speak publicly. And Trump encouraged Rosenstein to work with lawmakers on their document requests in a White House meeting April 12, the officials said.

 

“They’ve been saying I’m going to get rid of them for the last three months, four months, five months, and they’re still here,” Trump said at a news conference Wednesday when asked about Mueller and Rosenstein. 

Meadows, in a brief interview Wednesday, acknowledged that he met with Rosenstein earlier in the week.

“We keep getting promises that Congress will get the documents it has requested, but there has been little action that has supported those promises,” Meadows said. He called the meeting the culmination of the “dissatisfaction I’ve expressed on a number of occasions with varying degrees of passion.”

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

Meadows and other Republicans close to Trump, such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have long clashed with Rosenstein over documents related to the origin of the Russia investigation. Last week, in a move widely seen as an attempt to calm that rancor, the Justice Department gave Nunes access to a redacted document detailing the beginning of the probe — a day after Nunes suggested that he may try to impeach high-ranking FBI or Justice Department officials over their failure to produce what he wanted.

A Justice official said last week that the department had provided Nunes, ranking Democratic member Adam B. Schiff (Calif.) and all committee members access to the document with redactions “narrowly tailored to protect the name of a foreign country and the name of a foreign agent.”

Before that release, Trump sent a barrage of tweets accusing the Justice Department of “slow walking” document production and asked what the FBI and Justice officials “have to hide” on multiple fronts.

But the anger inside Trump’s orbit goes far beyond concerns about Mueller’s Russia probe and related documents and includes the Clinton investigation and memos from former FBI director James B. Comey about his interactions with Trump. On Wednesday evening, House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) served notice to the panel’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) that he intended to issue a subpoena for Comey’s memos, which have been turned over to Mueller.

Nadler, noting the memos were part of the special counsel investigation and likely could not be handed over to Congress, accused Goodlatte of seeking to create “an excuse” to hold Rosenstein in contempt of Congress. That possible motive, he added, might give the president “the pretext he has sought to replace Mr. Rosenstein with someone willing to do his bidding and end the special counsel’s investigation.”

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Washington refused to order the public disclosure of Comey’s memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by media organizations. The Justice Department has said the release would interfere with Mueller’s investigation.

Many critics of Trump say congressional Republicans are, fundamentally, attempting to build a case against Rosenstein in the hopes of closing the Mueller investigation — using the battle over documents to paper over their core aim of ending a probe that has become a political and legal burden for the president. Meadows contested that suggestion in the interview Wednesday.

We’re looking at all DOJ and FBI decision-making as it relates to the lead-up to the 2016 election,” Meadows said. “I’ve sent multiple requests to the deputy attorney general, and he knows that my motivations are all about doing the proper oversight, doing my job for my constituents.”

In a 2000 letter to Congress, Assistant Attorney General Robert Raben noted that “Congress has a clearly legitimate interest in how the department enforces statutes.” But, he said, “the department’s long-standing policy is to decline to provide congressional committees with access to open law enforcement files.”

Still, lawmakers over the past year have been given access to law enforcement records that include the classified surveillance warrant application and subsequent renewals targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. It is unclear whether the Page investigation is ongoing.

The Justice Department’s handling of the Clinton email investigation also remains a Republican target. On Wednesday, several House Republicans sent a letter to the Justice Department demanding criminal referrals for a number of prominent figures, including the former secretary of state and Comey.

The GOP chairman of the House Judiciary Committee last month subpoenaed the Justice Department for records collected by its inspector general in his probe of how the FBI handled its investigation of Clinton’s private email server. The subpoena from Goodlatte also covered documents related to an FBI internal report that recommended the firing of the bureau’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe. Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe last month, citing in part the FBI report and the inspector general’s finding that McCabe “lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.

McCabe has alleged that the move was an attempt to slander him and undermine Mueller’s probe.

Meadows and Jordan have made their pursuit of documents related to these various probes a rallying cry and legislative cause, often showcasing their loyalty to Trump in the process. 

Speaking Monday on CNN, Jordan said he has never heard Trump lie. “He’s always been square with me,” he said. “That’s for darn sure.”

At the Capitol last week, Meadows told reporters that he was ready to draft articles of impeachment for Rosenstein or push to hold the Justice official in contempt of Congress — and said congressional Republicans were willing to mount an aggressive campaign on Trump’s behalf.

“Contempt of Congress is really at the doorstep of Rod Rosenstein more than anybody else,” Meadows said.

He called contempt “the first step,” to be followed by “other tools” if the Justice Department did not produce the documents requested.

“It is certainly on the path to impeachment,” Meadows added.

Congressional Republican leaders, meanwhile, have shown limited interest in taking legislative steps to protect Mueller’s investigation.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Tuesday that Trump will not fire Mueller and that he would not hold a vote on a bipartisan measure proposed last week to protect him. The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), has pledged to hold a vote on the bill this month.

“We’ll not be having this on the floor of the Senate,” McConnell told Fox News.

[TwiceHorn 31086]

I think one real nice reform would be to put an end to congressional subpoena power.  And their "investigations."  They aren't investigators.  They have no law enforcement power.  Every "investigation" I can think of is just a political shitshow.

[TwiceHorn 31086]

53 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

That’s a lot of words defending an unintended result of the double jeopardy legislation. There is 0% chance the legislature considered the possibility of a presidential pardon being abused to get associates/family members/stakeholders of the President’s businesses off the hook for crimes committed. Permitting state prosecution ensures that no one is above the law. 

Arguing otherwise makes you sound like a douche

 

Oh come on.  The statute says no second "prosecutions."  Which means once indicted anywhere else, no more indictments in NY.  Doesn't matter how or if the prosecution terminates which would include pardon.  They clearly meant to tolerate no further prosecutions for offenses in NY.  Escaping a NY prosecution after a federal prosecution is terminated by pardon is not an "unintended consequence" of that legislation.

 

Pods said it was "good policy."  Respectfully, I don't think pods knows shit about the policy underlying double jeopardy and the dual sovereignty rule.  He just likes that it offers a second bite at the Trump apple.

 

Fuck trump.  I am against expanding double jeopardy, period.  Changing double jeopardy policy, which affects a much broader segment of the population, to ensnare Trump is probably not good policy.

Edited April 19, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Pig Bellmont 8664]

“Changing double jeopardy policy, which affects a much broader segment of the population, to ensnare Trump is probably not good policy.”

You lost me. In what world will allowing NY state prosecution in the case of presidential pardon affect a much broader segment of the population? This is harmless and advances the cause of justice 

[DanRydell 799]

 
Oh come on.  The statute says no second "prosecutions."  Which means once indicted anywhere else, no more indictments in NY.  Doesn't matter how or if the prosecution terminates which would include pardon.  They clearly meant to tolerate no further prosecutions for offenses in NY.  Escaping a NY prosecution after a federal prosecution is terminated by pardon is not an "unintended consequence" of that legislation.
 
Pods said it was "good policy."  Respectfully, I don't think pods knows shit about the policy underlying double jeopardy and the dual sovereignty rule.  He just likes that it offers a second bite at the Trump apple.
 
Fuck trump.  I am against expanding double jeopardy, period.  Changing double jeopardy policy, which affects a much broader segment of the population, to ensnare Trump is probably not good policy.

The dual sovereignty rule is bullshit. But being pardoned for a federal crime should also not attach jeopardy to a state prosecution. You can both maintain federalism and ensure the state can’t just continually try someone until they get their desired result.

[Pods 7503]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Oh come on.  The statute says no second "prosecutions."  Which means once indicted anywhere else, no more indictments in NY.  Doesn't matter how or if the prosecution terminates which would include pardon.  They clearly meant to tolerate no further prosecutions for offenses in NY.  Escaping a NY prosecution after a federal prosecution is terminated by pardon is not an "unintended consequence" of that legislation.

 

Pods said it was "good policy."  Respectfully, I don't think pods knows shit about the policy underlying double jeopardy and the dual sovereignty rule.  He just likes that it offers a second bite at the Trump apple.

Well that's what happens when you assume. In this case, you're wrong. I was a government major for a while in undergrad before following my heart. My best friend is a lawyer that eats, breathes and shits policy. 

I like this policy change because if Trump pardons his co-conspirators, the Rule of Law has broken down on the federal level and we live in a Banana Republic. When NY wrote this law, they weren't imagining that something like that was a possibility. It's a realistic possibility now and they are changing the law. 

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

16 hours ago, Pods said:

I agreed with that for a long time, but trolling has become such a big problem on the internet that ignoring it doesn't really work anymore. We need to return to the social norms of ridiculing and shaming jackasses like sheeeit and keeping him chasing his own tail in a circle. 

How's that working out for ya? 

[Pods 7503]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

How's that working out for ya? 

Quite well, thanks for asking. I find it makes reading his posts far more enjoyable. It's amusing to me when sheeeit spends an hour and a half typing out a long diatribe post that everyone ignores, because the conversation has moved on. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Pods

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

19 minutes ago, Pods said:

Just fine. How're things going for you?

Still just scrolling past every post that's responding to a troll, annoyed that people who think that they're trolling a troll don't realize they're the ones being suckered. You're not trolling the troll. You're helping him derail the discussion. It makes you part of the problem.

Let me know if you ever get a troll to slink away in shame because he's been out-trolled. That's never happened in the history of the Internet. Replying to them only gives them validation. It's why every time you see a thread has suddenly expanded by 3 or 4 pages you know a troll has been at work and a whole bunch of people are getting trolled who think they're being clever and out-trolling the troll. The troll wins. He's achieved his goal. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by WhatTheBuck

[Pods 7503]

When threads blow up in response to a troll on here, it's because people take them at face value and give them serious responses. The worst thing to do with a troll is give them sustained discussion. That's what serious responses do. I'd like for no one to ever respond to them, but I've got years of experience saying people still will. 

So if you can't make them go away, expose them. A combination of occasionally trolling them back while usually ignoring them is the best response in my opinion. Agree to disagree. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Pods

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

29 minutes ago, Pods said:

When threads blow up in response to a troll on here, it's because people take them at face value and give them serious responses. The worst thing to do with a troll is give them sustained discussion. That's what serious responses do. I'd like for no one to ever respond to them, but I've got years of experience saying people still will. 

So if you can't make them go away, expose them. A combination of occasionally trolling them back while usually ignoring them is the best response in my opinion. Agree to disagree. 

Taking them seriously excuses 2 or 3 replies before a sensible person should be able to recognize a troll. After that you're just feeding the troll and making them post more. How many times have you responded to sheeeit? And yet he's still here. I didn't need to reply to him once to see that he's a troll and put him on ignore. You're strategy is not having the outcome you think it is. 

You're free to disagree. Just think about it and consider the possibility that you're just feeding the trolls and cluttering up threads. Some people aren't worth responding to. You're not going to embarrass them. You're not going to change their mind. You're not "exposing" them. You're just getting trolled and are falling for it. 

[Jester 382]

Complaints about trolling are taking more away from the discussion that the actual trolls now.  Get a grip fellas.

[Anastasis 23329]

Time is a flat circle gif

[TwiceHorn 31086]

10 hours ago, Pods said:

Well that's what happens when you assume. In this case, you're wrong. I was a government major for a while in undergrad before following my heart. My best friend is a lawyer that eats, breathes and shits policy. 

I like this policy change because if Trump pardons his co-conspirators, the Rule of Law has broken down on the federal level and we live in a Banana Republic. When NY wrote this law, they weren't imagining that something like that was a possibility. It's a realistic possibility now and they are changing the law. 

Eh, I disagree.  The pardon power is in there (the Constitution, that is).  If it represents a breakdown of the rule of law in Trump's case, then it represents such a breakdown in every case.  I'm looking at this in a broader sense than Trump.

 

The saving grace I suppose is that just because prosecutors CAN initiate a second prosecution, doesn't mean they WILL in every case or most cases.  However, we have gotten ourselves right solid fucked as a nation by trusting prosecutorial discretion.

[TwiceHorn 31086]

11 hours ago, DanRydell said:

 

The dual sovereignty rule is bullshit. But being pardoned for a federal crime should also not attach jeopardy to a state prosecution. You can both maintain federalism and ensure the state can’t just continually try someone until they get their desired result.

I agree with this.  But it depends whether the pardon comes before or after a jeopardy-attaching event.  To me, pardons before conviction/acquittal are more politically hazardous than after.

[TwiceHorn 31086]

11 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

“Changing double jeopardy policy, which affects a much broader segment of the population, to ensnare Trump is probably not good policy.”

You lost me. In what world will allowing NY state prosecution in the case of presidential pardon affect a much broader segment of the population? This is harmless and advances the cause of justice 

Perhaps not this change specifically, but I don't really like the notion of changing criminal laws in a fit of pique about one particular defendant or group of defendants.  However valid that pique may be.

 

And, as pointed out above, there may be ex post facto problems with this.

 

Oddly enough, it seems the history of the NY statute is that robber barons like Morgan and other Wall Streeters didn't want to stand federal and state prosecutions for their financial malfeasances, so they "encouraged" the NY lege to enact this law, which very broadly prevented just that.  Still and all, I dislike the dual sovereignty aspect of double jeopardy (part of what I object to is that there are overlapping federal and state crimes, which should be a rare exception, not a general rule as it is today), therefore I like the NY statute and wish more states had similar ones, despite the unsavory origins.

[jimmyjazz 45429]

I'm not sure it's fair to reduce this to "a fit of pique" when in fact a hole in the process has been highlighted and it makes sense to close it.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not sure it's fair to reduce this to "a fit of pique" when in fact a hole in the process has been highlighted and it makes sense to close it.

I think the issue is that it isn’t the change alone that is making people uncomfortable, but that it is a change to make sure certain people go to jail for certain past conduct.  Seems Unamerican.  If you did this 10 years ago or ten years from now, I wouldn’t have an issue with it.  

[In10se 175]

6 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think the issue is that it isn’t the change alone that is making people uncomfortable, but that it is a change to make sure certain people go to jail for certain past conduct.  Seems Unamerican.  If you did this 10 years ago or ten years from now, I wouldn’t have an issue with it.  

Problem with that is that 10 years ago it was ludicrous to think a president would ever have thought to use pardon powers in a way that is so corrupt as to border on criminal in nature. 

10 years from now we might even have a more corrupt president that does it with impunity and the argument is "well we set precedent by allowing trump to do it".

The time to fix it is now when we are seeing that it is very possible we have such a corrupt president as to make this an issue. 

[jimmyjazz 45429]

I think the issue is that it isn’t the change alone that is making people uncomfortable, but that it is a change to make sure certain people go to jail for certain past conduct.  Seems Unamerican.  If you did this 10 years ago or ten years from now, I wouldn’t have an issue with it.  

Well, as someone else pointed out, pardons aren't exactly flying.

Edited April 19, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[DanRydell 799]

I agree with this.  But it depends whether the pardon comes before or after a jeopardy-attaching event.  To me, pardons before conviction/acquittal are more politically hazardous than after.

I disagree. The point of double jeopardy is to prevent the state from just trying someone over and over until getting the desired result. Trying someone after a pardon doesn’t violate that principle. It’s more akin to re-trying someone after a conviction is overturned on appeal.

[TwiceHorn 31086]

2 minutes ago, In10se said:

Problem with that is that 10 years ago it was ludicrous to think a president would ever have thought to use pardon powers in a way that is so corrupt as to border on criminal in nature. 

10 years from now we might even have a more corrupt president that does it with impunity and the argument is "well we set precedent by allowing trump to do it".

The time to fix it is now when we are seeing that it is very possible we have such a corrupt president as to make this an issue. 

It isn't really a "we" issue.  It's the State of New York's issue.  And the pardon power is constitutionally unfettered.  If we don't like who gets pardoned or why (the perceived why, anyway), the remedy is found in the voting booth, not in alterations to the criminal law.

[Pig Bellmont 8664]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It isn't really a "we" issue.  It's the State of New York's issue.  And the pardon power is constitutionally unfettered.  If we don't like who gets pardoned or why (the perceived why, anyway), the remedy is found in the voting booth, not in alterations to the criminal law.

This is such a strange hill to die on

[jimmyjazz 45429]

It's not like NY would be breaking new ground here.

[TwiceHorn 31086]

24 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This is such a strange hill to die on

I'm not dying on anything.  I'm expressing my opinions on double jeopardy law.  Simple.  Has nothing to do with Trump, actually.  Feel free to disagree, as you have, I think.

 

I dislike the dual sovereignty rule, which is what would permit a state prosecution for a presidentially pardoned (federal) crime.  In NY, they have abrogated the dual sovereignty rule, apparently for crass reasons long ago.  Nevertheless, I like what they've done.  Whether you call it "closing a loophole" or more broadly an ex post facto law. I am uneasy with it.

Edited April 19, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29146]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It isn't really a "we" issue.  It's the State of New York's issue.  And the pardon power is constitutionally unfettered.  If we don't like who gets pardoned or why (the perceived why, anyway), the remedy is found in the voting booth, not in alterations to the criminal law.

I'm not a huge original intent guy because I think anyone pretending to know what a large group of people a few hundred years ago clearly intended is full of shit, but it seems pretty unlikely that the President's pardon power was intended to apply to state crimes. I think permitting abuse of the pardon power to enable rampant executive lawlessness is a much larger concern than your generally valid concern, and the ballot box is an inadequate remedy. If the President can shield anyone from state criminal liability, he can effectively enable all sorts of election tampering on his behalf.

[TwiceHorn 31086]

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not a huge original intent guy because I think anyone pretending to know what a large group of people a few hundred years ago clearly intended is full of shit, but it seems pretty unlikely that the President's pardon power was intended to apply to state crimes. I think permitting abuse of the pardon power to enable rampant executive lawlessness is a much larger concern than your generally valid concern, and the ballot box is an inadequate remedy. If the President can shield anyone from state criminal liability, he can effectively enable all sorts of election tampering on his behalf.

The constitutional rule is that a federal conviction or acquittal does not bar a state prosecution for even the exact same offense .  So, if we were talking any state but NY or one of the few others that abrogate this rule for "second prosecutions" in their state, this would not be an issue.  In the absence of a state law to the contrary, states are free to prosecute even federally convicted and pardoned defendants for the same crime.

Thus, original intent is not part of this discussion.  Perhaps the intent of the NY legislature in enacting its law some years ago bears on the issue of whether this is a "loophole" or "unintended consequence" or just an ex post facto law, but that, to me, is not relevant to the discussion.

And you may ask, why does Twicehorn give two fucks about double jeopardy law?  There's actually an answer to that.  Many years ago, in the Criminal Defense Clinic, I represented a kid who had received a package not addressed to him at Jester.  The package contained a few items, like tshirts, of minor value, and a credit card.  This little dumbfuck was pissed because he thought the package contained his stereo gear shipped from home (not this actual package, but the one he was summoned to the mail room to pick up).  So he took the credit card and bought a couple hundred bucks worth of shit.

He was the subject of both a misdemeanor information for theft of the package contents in Travis County courts and a felony indictment for credit card abuse in the District Court.  He was also subject to federal indictment for mail fraud or something similar, although he was not so indicted.  We considered pleading him to the theft charge in order to have jeopardy attach to the felony charge.  In the course of researching all that, I was fairly appalled at what the double jeopardy rule did and didn't bar.  In the end, the misdemeanor prosecution was dismissed.  I don't know what became of him.

Now, this was judgey, alcoholic Twicehorn, who was kinda pissed that the law didn't serve his grand strategery of pleading the kid to misdemeanor theft and insulating him from prosecution from the more serious stuff.  But even then, I could see this was a little impulsive dumbass 18 year old kid (from NY incidentally), that didn't deserve to have his life ruined with moral turpitude convictions, although he probably did deserve to have his ass kicked a couple of times.  My views of the criminal justice system have become "less charitable" over the years.

Edited April 19, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I'm not following the logic against this.  Premising a double jeopardy protection on the initiation of prosecution suggests to me that NY felt that the interests of the state were satisfied where the federal government has committed to pursuing the charges.   A pardon essentially negates that commitment, and in the interest of the nation, not the state.  It is equivalent to the president saying that no prosecution should be initiated in the first place.  And, indeed, a pardon can be issued before there is any prosecution.  Whether it is or isn't is really happenstance. 

In such a circumstance, it is entirely consistent with the intent behind NY's law to restore NY's power to pursue its own interest in punishing a criminal.   Requiring the formalism of holding off on federal charges so the state AG goes first is pointless.  

Edited April 19, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[SquishMitten 10381]

I don't like the result in this exact case, but I can't completely disagree with Twicehorn here. I think the argument is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe this is specifically an intended consequence of the NY law, but it's pretty close. The purpose was to avoid dual prosecution based on the same crime. Whether the sovereigns are different is immaterial because that was the exact purpose of the law. Now, if the laws governing the conduct have materially different elements, that might be an entirely separate argument. Like...if you were pardoned on a Federal conviction for money-laundering, I don't think I'd have a problem with a state conviction for fraudulent real estate transactions even if both charges stemmed from the same deal. 

Back to where I agree with Twice, changing laws to close a loophole after the occurrence of an event is the slipperiest of slopes, and everyone should find it unsettling. As hard as it is, you have to set aside your personal feelings for this defendant because changing a law has significantly broader implications. Setting aside ex post facto for the sake of argument, there is probably a way to narrowly tailor the NY statute so that the potential for double jeopardy is not expanded...like establishing that the grant of a pardon precludes the triggering of jeopardy (And don't start putting holes in that example. I'm not going to sit here and write the whole statute.)

[TwiceHorn 31086]

17 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I don't like the result in this exact case, but I can't completely disagree with Twicehorn here. I think the argument is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe this is specifically an intended consequence of the NY law, but it's pretty close. The purpose was to avoid dual prosecution based on the same crime. Whether the sovereigns are different is immaterial because that was the exact purpose of the law. Now, if the laws governing the conduct have materially different elements, that might be an entirely separate argument. Like...if you were pardoned on a Federal conviction for money-laundering, I don't think I'd have a problem with a state conviction for fraudulent real estate transactions even if both charges stemmed from the same deal. 

Back to where I agree with Twice, changing laws to close a loophole after the occurrence of an event is the slipperiest of slopes, and everyone should find it unsettling. As hard as it is, you have to set aside your personal feelings for this defendant because changing a law has significantly broader implications. Setting aside ex post facto for the sake of argument, there is probably a way to narrowly tailor the NY statute so that the potential for double jeopardy is not expanded...like establishing that the grant of a pardon precludes the triggering of jeopardy (And don't start putting holes in that example. I'm not going to sit here and write the whole statute.)

Exactly.  Thank you. 

 

Anyway, enough of this, please resume the speculation.

Edited April 19, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Mojo Hand 4580]

39 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

The purpose was to avoid dual prosecution based on the same crime.

That's not the purpose; it's what the law provides.  Those are two different things.   Avoiding dual prosecution as an end in itself makes little sense.  The actual purpose is almost certainly some mix of vindicating the state's interest in punishing criminals while relieving defendants of the burden of having to defend themselves twice for the same thing.   The means to accomplish that was a bar on dual prosecutions, but it's reasonable to assume that this was anticipated to be via normal judicial process -- i.e., that the state's interest in prosecuting would be vindicated, just by the feds instead of the state prosecutors.   This is a loophole situation whereby a prosecution ends not in a judgment, but via an extraordinary extra-judicial process that is equivalent to never having prosecuted in the first place.   The defendant's interest hasn't changed, but the state's interest is no longer achieved, because the pardon isn't controlled by the head of the state.

That it's a loophole is underscored by the fact that (1) a pardon can issue before prosecution begins, in which case the state charges could proceed despite the federal pardon, which makes the determinative factor (the date of the pardon) completely formalistic, and (2) the only thing achieved by not amending the statute is forcing a federal prosecutor to sit on his hands while the state AG goes first, in which case you can have your two prosecutions anyway, only with significant delays in justice for everyone, including the defendant.

This is the exact type of situation that warrants amending a statute, regardless of the particular defendant -- a formalistic loophole not directly addressed by the statute itself that can already be circumvented via an inefficient process.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[burntorangebongos 10681]

The article I read said the state leg in New York is pretty evenly split so passage of this is no cakewalk.

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by burntorangebongos

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

There goes another long standing precedent.

Get ready for releasethememo2.0 

I’m sure Nunes will be driving the memos over to the White House shortly.

[triplehorn 2664]

 

This from SCO today in a hearing on whether the SCO has exceeded his authority in indicting Manafort per team Manafort claims.

Oh man, read the highlighted excerpts:

treasonweasels 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Manafort was a back channel to the Kremlin?

no shit?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Manafort was a back channel to the Kremlin?

no shit?

I thinking is a big deal.  It moves that allegation from what we think to what the guys actually looking at evidence and can do something about it thinks.