4 ms·

Looks like he's finally listening to his lawyers! Before his bail was reluctantly revoked, he was generating an astonishing stream of evidence for the prosecuti

by lolc 3y ago

Looks like he's finally listening to his lawyers! Before his bail was reluctantly revoked, he was generating an astonishing stream of evidence for the prosecution.

vkou 3y ago
He still isn't. It looks utterly horrible when he provides an incredibly detailed account that paints him in a positive light, but then can't give a straight answer when the prosecutor asks him what he had for breakfast, or why his testimony directly contradicts Exhibits A, B, C, and D - documents/e-mails that he signed/sent. His defense plan seems to be 'throw a mountain of shit at the jury, maybe some of it will confuse them enough.'
- amenhotep 3y ago
  Maybe my Matt Levine reading is showing, but doesn't that seem like obviously his best plan? They did a bunch of crime, wrote a bunch of documents about all the crime they were doing, and all the people he told to do crime are testifying about how he told them to do crime - it is difficult to come up with a sensible way to defend against that case. But it's easy to hope that you can bamboozle one juror with the same bamboozling techniques that worked on all the VCs. It's transparently not a good plan, but it doesn't have to be, it just has to be better than the other options.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I dunno. If he's sure that he'll be convicted, then it seems that a better plan would be to cooperate fully, show actual remorse, and plead guilty in the hopes of getting the lightest possible sentence.
    - amenhotep 3y ago
      That's really the only other option, yeah, but it's hard to judge whether it's better. There's not really any incentive for leniency, he's the big fish and they want to make an example of him, otherwise what's the point of giving all the subordinates deals? Maybe some contrition would get a perfunctory sentence reduction but I would absolutely trust a legal analysis saying he's already so screwed that trying for a hung jury is worth it.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        Even if it didn't result in a lighter sentence, it's still better in that there's no downside to doing it and it's worth a shot. Doing what he's done means that there's nearly zero chance of leniency. I'd take even a small chance of leniency over a tiny chance of it. It's also possible, as delusional as it would be, that he really thinks he's in the right here and is standing on principle. If that's the case, then he's doing what he should do.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

by lolc 3y ago

Looks like he's finally listening to his lawyers! Before his bail was reluctantly revoked, he was generating an astonishing stream of evidence for the prosecution.

vkou 3y ago

He still isn't. It looks utterly horrible when he provides an incredibly detailed account that paints him in a positive light, but then can't give a straight answer when the prosecutor asks him what he had for breakfast, or why his testimony directly contradicts Exhibits A, B, C, and D - documents/e-mails that he signed/sent. His defense plan seems to be 'throw a mountain of shit at the jury, maybe some of it will confuse them enough.'

amenhotep 3y ago
Maybe my Matt Levine reading is showing, but doesn't that seem like obviously his best plan? They did a bunch of crime, wrote a bunch of documents about all the crime they were doing, and all the people he told to do crime are testifying about how he told them to do crime - it is difficult to come up with a sensible way to defend against that case. But it's easy to hope that you can bamboozle one juror with the same bamboozling techniques that worked on all the VCs. It's transparently not a good plan, but it doesn't have to be, it just has to be better than the other options.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I dunno. If he's sure that he'll be convicted, then it seems that a better plan would be to cooperate fully, show actual remorse, and plead guilty in the hopes of getting the lightest possible sentence.
  - amenhotep 3y ago
    That's really the only other option, yeah, but it's hard to judge whether it's better. There's not really any incentive for leniency, he's the big fish and they want to make an example of him, otherwise what's the point of giving all the subordinates deals? Maybe some contrition would get a perfunctory sentence reduction but I would absolutely trust a legal analysis saying he's already so screwed that trying for a hung jury is worth it.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Even if it didn't result in a lighter sentence, it's still better in that there's no downside to doing it and it's worth a shot. Doing what he's done means that there's nearly zero chance of leniency. I'd take even a small chance of leniency over a tiny chance of it. It's also possible, as delusional as it would be, that he really thinks he's in the right here and is standing on principle. If that's the case, then he's doing what he should do.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]