4 ms·

Wow, he's still tweeting. Does he not have a lawyer? At all? Half the thread are deleted messages from days ago. And he's still continuing on the same thread! U

Wow, he's still tweeting. Does he not have a lawyer? At all? Half the thread are deleted messages from days ago. And he's still continuing on the same thread! Unbelievable. Here's a giant pile of shit I shouldn't have said that can easily be recovered through archives along with some more text messages I really shouldn't have said.

Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
His father is a lawyer and law professor iirc (edit: and so is his mother). If that’s the case you would expect his father to tell his son to lawyer up and shut the fuck up. But kids tend not to take their parent’s advice so maybe his father did :-p
- etempleton 4y ago
  Someone else on Twitter brought up that there is a chance, and this is a bit conspiratorial, that he is mounting a defense that he is incompetent. To be criminal requires intent. If he is just bad at his job then he is not criminally culpable—at least that is how the thinking goes. I don’t know what would or would not hold up in court, but this basically sets him up to say, look, “I had no idea and I even said as much.” As long as any other evidence does not contradict that then it would probably hold some weight.
  - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
    JUST A NOTE BEFORE MY POST: Had a couple of beers, its almost 6am my time and unable to sleep, so see this post more as a random stream of thoughts on the topic than anything "meaningful", INAL so I prob got all this wrong... Anyways on with the post. > As long as any other evidence does not contradict that That will be the problem. Its not just tweets he would have to worry about, esp as its been shown that during his "what happened" string of tweets his tweet count wasn't changing, so basically posting at the same time as deleting a tweet. What was in those deleted tweets? Getting those deleted tweets from twitter (if they haven't already been archived) won't be a issue. Plus I'm sure people will have copies of any off twitter conversations he has had. If he does try a "incompetency defense" all those will come out in court and which will look like such a defense would be in bad faith which won't play well with a jury. Intent isn't always required, for an extreme example (just one that jumped to mind) involuntary manslaughter doesn't require intent. INAL so can't state if criminal fraud explictly requires intent (iirc and INAL so don't hold this as gospel I think criminal fruad requires intent but civil fraud doesn't - "just" negligence) but again INAL "destruction of evidence" could infer intent (however unless he has already been served with notice not to delete things related to this mere deletion of tweets may not been proof of destruction of evidence. I do enjoy following a good trial. I can forsee any case against him being a federal case and we don't get cameras inside the court on federal cases, otherwise it would have been interesting to watch.

Crosseye_Jack 4y ago

His father is a lawyer and law professor iirc (edit: and so is his mother). If that’s the case you would expect his father to tell his son to lawyer up and shut the fuck up. But kids tend not to take their parent’s advice so maybe his father did :-p

etempleton 4y ago
Someone else on Twitter brought up that there is a chance, and this is a bit conspiratorial, that he is mounting a defense that he is incompetent. To be criminal requires intent. If he is just bad at his job then he is not criminally culpable—at least that is how the thinking goes. I don’t know what would or would not hold up in court, but this basically sets him up to say, look, “I had no idea and I even said as much.” As long as any other evidence does not contradict that then it would probably hold some weight.
- Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
  JUST A NOTE BEFORE MY POST: Had a couple of beers, its almost 6am my time and unable to sleep, so see this post more as a random stream of thoughts on the topic than anything "meaningful", INAL so I prob got all this wrong... Anyways on with the post. > As long as any other evidence does not contradict that That will be the problem. Its not just tweets he would have to worry about, esp as its been shown that during his "what happened" string of tweets his tweet count wasn't changing, so basically posting at the same time as deleting a tweet. What was in those deleted tweets? Getting those deleted tweets from twitter (if they haven't already been archived) won't be a issue. Plus I'm sure people will have copies of any off twitter conversations he has had. If he does try a "incompetency defense" all those will come out in court and which will look like such a defense would be in bad faith which won't play well with a jury. Intent isn't always required, for an extreme example (just one that jumped to mind) involuntary manslaughter doesn't require intent. INAL so can't state if criminal fraud explictly requires intent (iirc and INAL so don't hold this as gospel I think criminal fruad requires intent but civil fraud doesn't - "just" negligence) but again INAL "destruction of evidence" could infer intent (however unless he has already been served with notice not to delete things related to this mere deletion of tweets may not been proof of destruction of evidence. I do enjoy following a good trial. I can forsee any case against him being a federal case and we don't get cameras inside the court on federal cases, otherwise it would have been interesting to watch.