9 ms·

It is a jury he needs to convince... Maybe if this technique works in the media and on twitter, it will work against a jury, even if the judge sees right thro

It is a jury he needs to convince... Maybe if this technique works in the media and on twitter, it will work against a jury, even if the judge sees right through it.

taude 3y ago
Is it working in the media for him, though? No.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  I'd guess most jury members will have no clue what any of this is about. It'll just sound like big numbers, weird people speaking in jargon, and acronym soup. If he's convicted it won't be on the details, but on credibility. The "I don't recall" strategy won't fool a judge, but it might fool enough jurors. I think the prosecution is going to have to work unexpectedly hard to nail him to the wall. But I also suspect there's more to the story than we're being told. The fact that so much of the money seems to have gone on bribes and political donations, the fact that his parents are lawyers but apparently were shocked - shocked! - to discover he was doing something illegal, the fact that he seems so casual about the whole thing - it's all a little strange. His father "is considered a leading scholar in the discipline of tax law" and is a Stanford Professor of Law and Business. So with no obvious warning signs this must have come as a complete surprise to him.
  - callalex 3y ago
    Stanford is corrupt to its core, so none of this is all that unexpected.
JohnFen 3y ago
But if the judge thinks he's being unresponsive to the questions, he can be penalized (including possibly jailed) for that.
- SilasX 3y ago
  But ... he's already had his bail revoked and is in jail for the trial.
  - aaronmdjones 3y ago
    Being remanded into incarceration in the middle of the trial in the courthouse for contempt of court isn't going to look good to the jury, even if the judge instructs them to disregard it.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't mean he can't get a different and longer punishment for contempt of court -- which would be a charge independent of the ones he's in court to address.

It is a jury he needs to convince... Maybe if this technique works in the media and on twitter, it will work against a jury, even if the judge sees right through it.

taude 3y ago

Is it working in the media for him, though? No.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
I'd guess most jury members will have no clue what any of this is about. It'll just sound like big numbers, weird people speaking in jargon, and acronym soup. If he's convicted it won't be on the details, but on credibility. The "I don't recall" strategy won't fool a judge, but it might fool enough jurors. I think the prosecution is going to have to work unexpectedly hard to nail him to the wall. But I also suspect there's more to the story than we're being told. The fact that so much of the money seems to have gone on bribes and political donations, the fact that his parents are lawyers but apparently were shocked - shocked! - to discover he was doing something illegal, the fact that he seems so casual about the whole thing - it's all a little strange. His father "is considered a leading scholar in the discipline of tax law" and is a Stanford Professor of Law and Business. So with no obvious warning signs this must have come as a complete surprise to him.
- callalex 3y ago
  Stanford is corrupt to its core, so none of this is all that unexpected.

JohnFen 3y ago

But if the judge thinks he's being unresponsive to the questions, he can be penalized (including possibly jailed) for that.

SilasX 3y ago
But ... he's already had his bail revoked and is in jail for the trial.
- aaronmdjones 3y ago
  Being remanded into incarceration in the middle of the trial in the courthouse for contempt of court isn't going to look good to the jury, even if the judge instructs them to disregard it.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't mean he can't get a different and longer punishment for contempt of court -- which would be a charge independent of the ones he's in court to address.