Category Archives: Justice

American Justice: See If You Can Plea-Bargain Yourself Out Of Jail

Criminal Injustice, Justice, Law, The State

From Paul Craig Roberts comes the most important sentences you’ll read today. It encapsulates the fate of Paul Manafort and so many others:

Justice no longer exists in America as 97% of felony convictions result from self-incrimination—plea bargains in which the defendant, innocent or guilty, advised by his attorney that a fair trial is impossible, admits to some offense in exchange for a watered-down sentence.

AND:

Decades ago when there was still some semblance of justice in the American justice system, police had to provide sound evidence for their case in order for the prosecutor to take up the case. The reason was that prosecutorial budgets were limited, and the career interests of prosecutors was to get as many convictions out of their budget as possible. Today, however, when even the innocent prefer to admit a crime rather than run the risk of a trial, prosecutors have endless strings of “convictions” without having to spend days or weeks in trial.

Today prosecutors no longer have to prove a case before a jury. They only negotiate with the defendant’s attorney a crime, whether committed or not, that settles the case. …

MORE: “Evidence Is No Longer A Western Value.”

Rudy Giuliani Is Doing Political PR; He’s NOT Protecting The President Legally

Donald Trump, Justice, Law, Politics, Republicans, Russia

“The White House is trying to downplay signs of trouble after the New York Times reported that White House counsel Don McGahn has cooperated extensively with the Russia investigation.”

CNN has learned that McGahn’s attorney did not give President Trump’s lawyers a full debrief after McGahn sat down for almost 30 hours of interviews with Robert Mueller’s team. CNN’s sources are saying that the president’s attorneys, well, did not ask for a debrief. (SEE Transcript)

More worrying is that, in Rudy Giuliani, the president has hired a political noise-maker.

Giuliani’s legal acumen is manifestly poor. When commentators wonder whether he even reads up briefs on the Mueller witch-hunt—one cannot disagree. It always sounds like Giuliani is flying by the seat of his pants.

America’s favorite former mayor is doing political PR; he’s not protecting the president legally.

So, where are all the president’s good men? And yes, Don McGahn is a big, dangerous deal.

 

UPDATED (8/22): Paul Manafort’s Lawyers Decide To … Gamble. What’s There To Lose Except The Rest Of Client’s Life

Justice, Law, Taxation

His life is on the line—the rest of it—yet Paul Manafort’s lawyers have opted for a risky defense strategy. Risky when so much is at stake.

Instead of mounting a defense against the oddly timed prosecution out of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, Manafort’s lead attorney Kevin Downing decides to wing it. His defense relied on cross examination of the prosecution’s witnesses.

Apparently the belief is that juries are sophisticated enough to discern that “the government has not met its burden of proof.”

“This is very common after prosecution rests to file a motion saying they didn’t meet the burden beyond a reasonable doubt,” said John Cohen, a former homeland security official and ABC New contributor. “Typically, this doesn’t work.”

Manafort’s lawyers clearly felt that gambling was the way to go, here. After all, what’s there to lose? The rest of their client’s life?

UPDATE (8/22):

Dumb lawyer gambled with his client’s life and the client lost.

Comments Off on UPDATED (8/22): Paul Manafort’s Lawyers Decide To … Gamble. What’s There To Lose Except The Rest Of Client’s Life

Written by on

UPDATED (7/30): The Robert Mueller Inquisition Is The Star(r) Chamber By Any Other Name

Donald Trump, Government, Hillary Clinton, Justice, Law, Republicans, Russia, The State

No matter how you slice it, support for the The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, with its “storm-trooper tactic” and overweening, extra-constitutional powers, is WRONG, whether headed by Kenneth Starr or Robert Mueller. The moniker Star(r) Chamber stuck for good reason. Republicans conducted such a witch hunt; Dems are doing it now  Tucker the Great expresses regret for supporting the first.

Another honest man is Democrat Mark Penn.

Via Real-clear Politics:

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Mark Penn was for many years one of the highest-level advisors to Hillary Clinton. He’s the author of the new book, “Microtrends Squared”, he joins us tonight. Mark, thanks a lot for coming on.

MARK PENN, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON CHIEF STRATEGIST: Thank you.

CARLSON: So, you wrote kind of an amazing piece the other day in “The Hill,” titled something like, questions I have for Robert Mueller. Tell us some of the questions that if you could ask, you would.

PENN: Well, remember, Tucker, I spent a year working with President Clinton against Ken Starr and that effort.

CARLSON: Well, I remember very well.

PENN: I just find that that was child’s play to what’s going on here. And I think Mueller has some questions about what the president was thinking when he fired Comey. Well, I certainly have some questions about what he was thinking when first he went to apply for the FBI job in the first place with Rosenstein. And then, turns around the next day, didn’t he already have a plan when he turned around.

Boy, when he put that team together, and there wasn’t a single Trump donor, what was he thinking then?

And when he looked at these dossiers and discovered that there was no foundation there, how did he deal with that? How does he justify these kinds of really stormtrooper tactics, I think is perhaps not an exaggeration, when you go guns drawn to political consultants, wiretapped all over the place over payments to porn stars?

This thing has gotten out of control. And while he wants to question the president, it seems that no one could really question either Mueller or Comey or Rosenstein, and that is precisely the problem.

CARLSON: Yes. It is the problem. And I hate to admit it since I supported the Ken Starr independent counsel investigation, and I look back in shame because of that. But that was the case that the Clinton people made at the time, there’s no oversight here. And that’s a huge problem.

And it turns out you were right about that.

In your piece, you made reference to his behavior in Boston when he worked there in the Whitey Bulger case. Briefly summarize that, if you would, because I thought it was really interesting.

PENN: Well, really the question – and I think Professor Dershowitz has really been out on this thing. But in the Bulger case, there were four innocent people in jail due to prosecutorial misconduct. And he was head of the office.

And so, you do not really find him in the legal cases, but that means he waited until the courts overturned things to release the people. And so, what was he thinking when that was happening? How did he permit that? How did he permit these kinds of gross abuses? And how does he then supervise an investigation now that seems to be filled with them?

CARLSON: Mark Penn, again, you have authority on this subject. And so, it’s nice to hear from you. Thanks a lot.

PENN: I went through it once. And I hope America doesn’t go through it again.

CARLSON: Yes. Hillary never would have allowed this. She’s too smart for this. There’s no doubt. Thank you.

An arm of the oppressor:

UPDATE (7/30): Title corrected: “An investigation in search of a crime.”