Sounds like Cannon's response to the jury instructions thing was, "hey man, there's no bad ideas in brainstorming" and that she wants to make the jury instructions decision at a later date. Can the prosecution ask that she make a pre-trial decision on the law with respect to the PRA?
You know, I think Ken is being a little too binary when he theorizes that Cannon's blatant signaling and whatnot points to inexperience and being in over her head rather than bad intentions. Let's be real, Trump has gotten a LOT of fools in his posse over the years - I would even go so far as to say that being willing to go all in for Trump is a sign of mental deficiency.
Therefore, let's not overlook the very likely possibility that Cannon is a shill who is deliberately trying to throw this very important case for Trump AND she is inexperienced and kind of dumb and therefore doing a bad job of it. After all, it's been observed in a lot of places that one of the reasons that Trump was less than successful at dismantling democracy during his first term is that his minions just didn't really know what they were doing and were bad at their job.
I have a goofy question about words. In sports a player might get “benched” for various reasons. But if an appeals court removes a case from a judge, getting “benched” seems like the totally wrong word for it.
But it’s also very rare, and I imagine attorneys would have a very colorful word for when it does happen. Is “debenched” a thing? Unbenched? Or is this more like getting ejected from the game?
With the ongoing threats judges and prosecutors continue to face who draw the ire of Trump and his devotees, does anyone give any credence to the thought that Cannon might be straddling both slow rolling the case to stay in his good graces and being open to being taken off the case through recusal so she can save face and not have to fall out of favor with the Shah of Dumbfuckistan?
Also, it seems a bit strange to me that we give people lighter sentences in these kind of situations when they take responsibility for their actions.
I mean what is it that taking responsibility in this sort of case reveals about the wrongdoer? Either it reveals a willingness to lie when it benefits them (hardly something worthy of sentence reduction) or it suggests that they really were at some level more aware that what they were doing was wrong and harmful, i.e., it suggests they were more on the greedy than deluded end of the spectrum.
Sure, if what he did was beat someone up or break into a store refusing to take responsibility might be troubling because it makes it more likely he'll do it again after getting out. And sure maybe SBF would be inclined to do it again after getting out but for him to do it someone has to give him money despite knowing what he was likely to do with it which doesn't seem like much of a threat to the public.
I dunno, it kinda smacks of a kinda "say my name bitch" element to the justice system which I find unpalatable.
The idea that we need to protect people from these white collar criminals getting out of prison and starting another buisness just seems bonkers to me. First, we have laws that limit who is allowed to run various sorts of financial institutions and, besides, if you go give someone like SBF your money after he gets out I think it's a bit hard to say you are being defrauded at that point.
I think this is a very legitimate reason that white collar sentences often should be much lighter than other sentences even for a given level of harm. The take them off the street justification no longer makes much sense because their mere conviction for fraud does most of that work. A thief or rapist can break into your house without any participation of a victim but SBF can't start a new buisness without someone giving him money.
Characterizing John Eastman as having provided “intellectual heft” to Trump does grave disservice to both intellectuals and the hefty.
It’s so tiresome to hear the media incorrectly report on Trump’s paper value as if he could withdraw at an ATM.
“My useful life is over.” - Sam Bankman-Fried
Useful life?
I always do enjoy the episode!
Sounds like Cannon's response to the jury instructions thing was, "hey man, there's no bad ideas in brainstorming" and that she wants to make the jury instructions decision at a later date. Can the prosecution ask that she make a pre-trial decision on the law with respect to the PRA?
Now that it looks like Eastman is going to be disbarred, will California tackle Orly Taitz, so she can go back to dentistry?
Bob
I think it’s important to recognise the absolute quality of this episode’s title. Top notch work.
You know, I think Ken is being a little too binary when he theorizes that Cannon's blatant signaling and whatnot points to inexperience and being in over her head rather than bad intentions. Let's be real, Trump has gotten a LOT of fools in his posse over the years - I would even go so far as to say that being willing to go all in for Trump is a sign of mental deficiency.
Therefore, let's not overlook the very likely possibility that Cannon is a shill who is deliberately trying to throw this very important case for Trump AND she is inexperienced and kind of dumb and therefore doing a bad job of it. After all, it's been observed in a lot of places that one of the reasons that Trump was less than successful at dismantling democracy during his first term is that his minions just didn't really know what they were doing and were bad at their job.
This podcast’s title could so easily be a The Economist headline
I have a goofy question about words. In sports a player might get “benched” for various reasons. But if an appeals court removes a case from a judge, getting “benched” seems like the totally wrong word for it.
But it’s also very rare, and I imagine attorneys would have a very colorful word for when it does happen. Is “debenched” a thing? Unbenched? Or is this more like getting ejected from the game?
With the ongoing threats judges and prosecutors continue to face who draw the ire of Trump and his devotees, does anyone give any credence to the thought that Cannon might be straddling both slow rolling the case to stay in his good graces and being open to being taken off the case through recusal so she can save face and not have to fall out of favor with the Shah of Dumbfuckistan?
Also, it seems a bit strange to me that we give people lighter sentences in these kind of situations when they take responsibility for their actions.
I mean what is it that taking responsibility in this sort of case reveals about the wrongdoer? Either it reveals a willingness to lie when it benefits them (hardly something worthy of sentence reduction) or it suggests that they really were at some level more aware that what they were doing was wrong and harmful, i.e., it suggests they were more on the greedy than deluded end of the spectrum.
Sure, if what he did was beat someone up or break into a store refusing to take responsibility might be troubling because it makes it more likely he'll do it again after getting out. And sure maybe SBF would be inclined to do it again after getting out but for him to do it someone has to give him money despite knowing what he was likely to do with it which doesn't seem like much of a threat to the public.
I dunno, it kinda smacks of a kinda "say my name bitch" element to the justice system which I find unpalatable.
The idea that we need to protect people from these white collar criminals getting out of prison and starting another buisness just seems bonkers to me. First, we have laws that limit who is allowed to run various sorts of financial institutions and, besides, if you go give someone like SBF your money after he gets out I think it's a bit hard to say you are being defrauded at that point.
I think this is a very legitimate reason that white collar sentences often should be much lighter than other sentences even for a given level of harm. The take them off the street justification no longer makes much sense because their mere conviction for fraud does most of that work. A thief or rapist can break into your house without any participation of a victim but SBF can't start a new buisness without someone giving him money.