3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoThat'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 agoEven 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]