4 ms·
> People cite these numbers in part because DOJ posts them in their press releases. DOJ is in these instances lying. When we amplify those lies, we're doing the
by watwut 1mo ago
> People cite these numbers in part because DOJ posts them in their press releases. DOJ is in these instances lying. When we amplify those lies, we're doing their work for them.
If DOJ said to him or to the public potential punishment is 35 years, then yes it is fair to say he was facing that. They cant have it both ways - claim that 35 years is possible outcome to pressure the person and then turn around and be like "nah, that is exaggerated such huge penalties are not a thing".
Seriously, it is 35 years when it suits DOJ and institutions. And it turns into "likely just straight probation" when ... suits DOJ and big companies.
- tptacek 1mo agoAmong other problems with this argument you have the fact that DOJ doesn't decide sentences.
- watwut 1mo agoOverwhelming majory of senteces comes from plea deal. And threat of large punishment of you dont sign is major driver there. So, we are really getting back to DOJ wants sentences to look super huge so you sign a deal ... but when it is politically inconvenient they suddenly get small.
- tptacek 1mo agoSwartz had extremely good lawyers at both the beginning and the end of this case and was exactly the kind of nerd to have read the sentencing guidelines himself. And, once again: the DOJ doesn't set sentences, the judge does.