4 ms·
Popehat's math is lengthy - suggesting the sushi chef would get 2 years instead of 67. By a similar ratio Brown would have got less than the 5 years he got wit
by deepnet 9y ago
Popehat's math is lengthy - suggesting the sushi chef would get 2 years instead of 67.
By a similar ratio Brown would have got less than the 5 years he got with a plea deal.
If so, why did he take a plea deal and lose his day in court ? Was it just bad advice ?
[edit]Was Brown prosecuted : because of the severity of his crime; because he was easier to catch; or because he was embarrassing the powerful ?[/edit]
[edited]Whatever one's opinion of Brown, he certainly is a journalist and the Intercept is right to draw attention to his censoring and investigate if it is politically motivated or simply the result of a miscommunication about the forms he was given.[/edit]
- tptacek 9y agoWe can read the indictment, stipulate that every claim in the indictment held up at trial, research his criminal history, and then match that up to the guidelines, which are easily Google-able. I don't know, and haven't done this analysis, but I doubt it's 10 years. What I do know is that it's not 100 years, and that The Intercept isn't actually informing you of anything when they claim it is. You're no closer to understanding the severity of the charges he was facing after reading this article. The parent comment was completely rewritten after I responded to it. I have no idea what the answer to whatever the current version of the question they're trying to ask is.
- deepnet 9y agoApologies for the editing, very bad form on my part and thank you for taking the time to answer - I added edit tags to the additions. It certainly puts a different light on things that he took a plea for 5 years instead of fighting it and risking 10, [edit] rather than 100.[/edit] I will contact the journalist with Popehat's work.