Celebrity Pardon Store Now Open

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Thu May 31, 2018 at 08:51:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Donald Trump pardoned Dinesh D’Souza. The New York Times editorial board asks, Really? (I asked, who? I've never heard of him.) The Times explains:

On Thursday, Mr. Trump pardoned Dinesh D’Souza, the right-wing troll known for, among other things, posting racist tweets about President Barack Obama, spreading the lie that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator and writing that “the American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.”

Today Trump said Martha Stewart and Rod Blagojevich may be next. Yesterday, he took a celebrity photo at the White House with Kim Kardashian who was there to advise him on "prison reform". She learned of a single case of a 91 year old serving a long drug sentence via Twitter of all places, and now she's invited to the White House to opine? Does she really believe that Donald Trump, who is so anti-offender than he fired her sister Khloe Kardashian from the Apprentice because of a DUI (watch the video) gives a sh*t about any offender who isn't related to him? I certainly don't. [More...]

Personally, I believe Martha Stewart and Rod Blagojevich should never have been convicted and certainly received out of proportion unfair sentences. Blagojevich's 14 year sentence in particular as I have written extensively, was overkill.

I would send Blagojevich home just to relieve his wife Patty's misery. And Martha is doing just fine -- Macy's hardly stocks any other brand than hers and she's about to become a judge on the Food Network's Chopped.

I have never watched a Kardashian show, and I doubt I ever will. I never figured out why they were famous and honestly, I couldn't care less. Why should I spend time following their lives when I have a life of my own? At least Snookie in the early days of Jersey Shore really was funny (albeit unintentionally.)

Anyway, Donald Trump might as well put up a sign that says "Pardons for Sale." Instead of doing something useful like going through the tens of thousands of applications for pardons still being evaluated when Obama left office, he is going to pick and choose his celebrity favorites after asking and deciding, "What's in it for me?"

Absolutely pathetic. And utterly predictable.

< Memorial Day (Evening) Open Thread | Supreme Court Rules Against Gay Couple in Wedding Cake Case >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Celebrity Pardon Store Now Open | 72 comments (72 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You ask, "Who is Dinesh D'Souza?" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 04:09:25 AM EST

Jeralyn: "Donald Trump pardoned Dinesh D'Souza. The New York Times editorial board asks, Really? (I asked, who? I've never heard of him.)"

He's a right-wing dipstick who's a darling of the ignorant and stupid, because he produces toxic films like "2016: Obama's America," a pseudo-documentary so howlingly awful that even the lightweight Hollywood fluffsters at Entertainment Weekly felt compelled to denounce it as "a nonsensically unsubstantiated act of character assassination." Nevertheless, white wingbats love it because it comports to their warped worldview.

D'Souza is pure poison.

: The first time I heard of Dinesh D'Souza (none / 0) (#4)
by vml68 on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 11:32:42 AM EST

was when Jondee mentioned his name a couple of years ago. I was curious because I recognized that name as being from my part of the world.
There are plenty of white people worshippers like Dinesh D'Souza where I come from.
Too bad he was not around during slavery in the US, his brown a$$ would have got to experience first hand how well "property" was treated.

I've never watched (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by CST on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 08:24:15 AM EST

A Kardashian show either. That said - I'm not going to knock her for using the one thing that might work with Trump (celebrity status) to try and influence prison reform, even if it is only for one old lady (who isn't a celebrity or related to her personally). At least she's trying to do something good with it.

The fact that you have to be a celebrity to get through to Trump is atrocious though.

Trump is setting the table ... (5.00 / 6) (#3)
by Yman on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 10:10:38 AM EST

Pardoning his political friends convicted of violating electionm laws and public officials convicted of corruption, so it will be less shocking when he does it for those involved in his Russia investigation. He's also signaling to witnesses that his power to pardon is virtually unrestricted and they he willing to hand them out to his friends like candy. It's more obstruction in prin sight.

I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 12:12:59 PM EST

the Guardian says he's pardoning people who were convicted of offenses similar to those his family and friends are being accused of.

Trump's attempt to align himself with D'Souza, by granting him a full pardon and by bringing his name and work into the public eye, is a clear, strident step that, for now, is achieving the desired effect: shock and confusion. It's also led some to note that the crime D'Souza has been pardoned for is the same as one of the allegations against Michael Cohen.
"Nobody asked me to do it," Trump said to press earlier today. "I read the papers - I see him on television."

Newly (none / 0) (#37)
by FlJoe on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 05:24:52 AM EST

released letter from tRump's lawyers lays out the game plan.

It is our position that the President's actions here, by virtue remains of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired

They seem to argue that the President is above the law.

More chillingly they go on to argue that the President is the law

A President can also order the termination of an investigation by the Justice Department or FBI at any time and for any reason

: So, did they (none / 0) (#42)
by Zorba on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 11:33:00 AM EST

happen to mention who died and made Trump Emperor of the United States?

Trump is not (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by KeysDan on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 02:25:21 PM EST

a strategic thinker. The idea that he, or for that matter, any of his best people, have come up with grand messages to Trumpian felons and soon-to-bes, would seem to take more fire-power and competence than is evident.

Trump's specialty is trolling liberals for distraction and reaction. And, his trolling is based on lies and Fox and Friends latest; even Blagojevich's wife was on Tucker Carlson's Fox show, which might account for Trump even knowing about his case, other than it offers the possibility of bringing up Obama's open senate seat that Blago saw as a golden grift. D'Souza is a great example of liberal trolling to which D'Souza is amplifying. Ted Cruz has been an advocate for such a pardon. He also serves as Trumpian counter-attack on the canning of Roseanne.

This is not to say that Trump does not entertain pardoning to save his and Ivanka's skin, for the wide berth of the presidential power to grant reprieves and pardons is the goal to which he is inching toward for his destruction of the country.

But, I think that he is not so dumb as to not see the danger of pardons that have corrupt intent. A Court test he may not relish. But, if it is an encouraging trial balloon, he will need to do it before the November elections and impeachment.

Oh and OT (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by smott on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 11:16:09 AM EST

But where the hell is Melania Trump?

The timing is very odd, so close after her big Be Best campaign launch. It does not sound like something planned, i.e. Plastic surgery.

I hope not, but I wonder if Trump beat her.

Anyway the timing appears unexpected. The "rest assured" tweet was plainly not her. And it's hard to explain no public appearance at all.

My hope is she's flipped and Mueller has her and her whole Fam under protection.

Plastic surgery? (none / 0) (#23)
by MKS on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 04:16:06 PM EST

That was my guess (none / 0) (#24)
by MKS on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 04:17:51 PM EST

But you're right, the timing for that would be odd when coming right after her Be Best speech.


Day 24 (none / 0) (#47)
by smott on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 01:16:15 PM EST

And complete radio silence from the MSM.


: Imagine (none / 0) (#48)
by smott on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 01:19:19 PM EST

A husband w history of beating/raping former wives, and multiple other rape accusations.
Current wife unexpectedly is hospitalized 5 days then disappears.
Press collectively shrugs.
Our media has failed us.

Too Many Zooz in this Gov (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Dadler on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 04:41:13 PM EST

Peace and Luv to all my old TL chums. Fight the power, kids. XO.

Dadler! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Zorba on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 05:33:02 PM EST

How you doing?


Thanks, Dadler. I really enjoyed that. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by vml68 on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 12:36:45 PM EST

n/t


: Taking the music to the people! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by jondee on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 12:44:29 PM EST

Sweet.

There are things I miss about NYC (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 05:53:05 PM EST

Not many but some.


Who? (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by linea on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 10:21:30 PM EST

Re: `Dinesh D'Souza... I've never heard of him.'

I've never heard of him either.

But it is my opinion that the federal `false information' statute is unreasonable, that it is arbitrary applied, and it is my understanding that it is more strict than actual perjury before a court. I consider it an obscene law that is often used to destroy people where there is no underlying crime. In my opinion, until this law is overturned, any attorney who lets any of her clients speak to any federal agent for any reason is committing gross negligent misfeasance in representing their client.

I also feel Martha Stewart should be pardoned. From what I understand of the Blagojevich case, he's served enough time. I don't see anything wrong with this Executive use of pardons and don't understand why some people think one giant dump at the end of an administration is somehow more seemly or has more decorum.

You didn't google (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by oculus on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 11:43:03 PM EST

D'Souza I gather.


: I downloaded all the pleadings in the case off (5.00 / 8) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 01:37:12 AM EST

PACER -- that 10cents a page sure adds up
In a nutshell: came to US by himself to go to college, made friends. Got married, had a daughter, his daughter says his wife was a b*tch to him and after she was grown he finally divorced her. He was having an affair with the lady running for Senate, whom he also knew from college. He donated to her and got his frineds to as well. He deserved the conviction, he got out of going to jail, was put on probation and ordered to do 8 hrs a week commun. service. He keeps filing motoins to travel to exoctic places and the judge keeps telling the lawyers to read his sentencing order -- he should stop trying to weasel out of hid commun. service.
Problem with Souza is he views himself as a victim. He is not. Had he gone about whatever film business he had quietly, he may have passed scrutiny. But telling the people giving the money to lie is a no brainer. He's lucky he got probabtion. If you wnat to play with the big boysm, you better bring your big boy pants or they will take you for the lightweight you appear to be.

On what basis? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 10:57:04 AM EST

Re: `Dinesh D'Souza... I've never heard of him.'
I've never heard of him either.
But it is my opinion that the federal false information' statute is unreasonable, that it is arbitrary applied, and it is my understanding that it is more strict than actual perjury before a court. I consider it an obscene law that is often used to destroy people where there is no underlying crime.

On what basis do you conclude it's unreasonable and arbitrarily applied, let alone "obscene"? Allowing witnesses to give false information to federal investigators without any consequences would undermine the entire system of federal law enforcement - and the same applies at the local level. Moreover, how is that relevant to D'Souza or the other (potential) pardons? There is absolutely zero evidence that any of these people were charged in an arbitrary manner. D'Souza wasn't convicted of lying to investigators. He admitted to and was convicted of federal election fraud for making illegal campaign contributions. In addition to lying to investigators, Stewart was convicted on felony conspiracy and obstruction charges. Blaojevich was also convicted of wire fraud, attempted extortion and conspiracy to solicit bribes.

I don't see anything wrong with this Executive use of pardons and don't understand why some people think one giant dump at the end of an administration is somehow more seemly or has more decorum.

Probably because no one is objecting to these pardons/potential pardons for that reason.


: "Abitrarily applied" (5.00 / 5) (#17)
by jondee on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 12:46:07 PM EST

sounds like someone, who only recently learned who D'Souza was, read a Conservopedia article on his case and swallowed the spin hook-line-and-sinker.
"Arbitrarily applied" of course being just another way of saying D'Souza was somehow unfairly singled out. As if the law were on the books simply to be used as a weapon to persecute political enemies, like poor, beleaguered Dinesh D'Souza.

He's been on Fox News and Bill Maher (none / 0) (#16)
by McBain on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 12:05:05 PM EST

I've seen him there but never watched any of his films. I'm guessing he's the conservative version of Michael Moore?

As for people I'd like to see pardoned/released.. Brendan Dassey comes to mind.
How about giving The West Memphis Three the full vindication they deserve?
I'd like to see Steven Avery and Scott Peterson get new trials.

Not sure if any of those fall into the category of presidential pardon possibilities but someone should do it.


A bad guess. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
by KeysDan on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 12:57:40 PM EST

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. Dinesh D'Souza is a vile conservative troll, not to mention a convicted felon. Moore is a popular guest and speaker at liberal forums; D'Souza has been dis-invited to speak at the very conservative CPAC.

Moore's activism has been manifest, in large measure, through his documentary films, starting with Roger & Me, on GM factories in Flint< MI moving to Mexico; Bowling for Columbine, which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary; Farenheit 911, that won the Palme d'Or, and Sicko on the health care system. Roger Moore has been editor of Mother Jones, and has had a successful Broadway run. Yes, he engages in provocative behavior for his causes, but, unlike D'Souza, can go about his work without its cynosure being racism.


I think you're a little biased here (none / 0) (#19)
by McBain on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 01:29:00 PM EST

I enjoyed Moore's first film, Roger and Me, quite a bit until I learned how he edited certain scenes to mislead and make people look bad. After he took a cheap shot at Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, I stopped watching his films. I've seen him Bill Maher several times and he's usually entertaining but way over the top with his criticism conservatives.

I obviously can't talk about D'Souza films, since I haven't seen them but I'm curious why you consider his work to be racist? Far too often people use that description/criticism at the drop of a hat when they don't like someone's politics.


What cheap shot did he take at Heston? (5.00 / 7) (#21)
by jondee on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 02:02:05 PM EST

Chuck was the national spokesperson for a very controversial organization. Under the circumstances, I thought Moore's interviewing approach with Heston was fairly mild.


Here's the interview (none / 0) (#32)
by McBain on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 09:32:15 PM EST

of Heston by Moore.
It was clearly set up to make him look bad. Heston clearly wasn't at his best that day but Moore didn't care. He even followed Heston after he left the interview. I stopped watching Moore's movies after this.

If you're the public face (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by jondee on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 10:27:50 PM EST

of the organization like the NRA, you should expect to be "set up," i.e., be prepared to answer tough questions a lot. It comes with the territory.

I think it was a perfectly fair and legitimate question to ask why the NRA chose to stage those rallies in Flint and Denver at the time that they did. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.


: It could have been handled in a much, much (none / 0) (#54)
by McBain on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 06:22:48 PM EST

better way. But that's not Michael Moore. He's more of a hustler, entertainer than a true documentary filmmaker. He's definitely good at what he does.
In general, I don't like documentary filmmakers who make themselves a big part of their films. Moore does that, so does Morgan Spurlock. No idea about D'Souza?

Well, you may be (none / 0) (#20)
by KeysDan on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 01:56:28 PM EST

right. After all, he did deplore his tweet.


None of them (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Zorba on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 02:04:34 PM EST

are eligible for presidential pardons because they weren't convicted of federal crimes.


Scott Peterson does not deserve a new trial. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 06:40:37 PM EST

He deserves only to have his death sentence commuted to life without parole, so he can live to the ripe old age of 95 behind bars and remember every single friggin' day why he's there.

Dinesh D'Souza is a right-wing hack who committed felony election fraud and is absolutely guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. He even caused serious problems for the Republican U.S. Senate candidate he was ostensibly helping, because she filed an erroneous campaign spending report with the FEC on the basis of the false information she received from him about the phony contributions.

People are often convicted of crimes because they're, you know, guilty.


I hope the vast majority of convictions (none / 0) (#28)
by McBain on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 07:46:29 PM EST

are because of actual guilt. One of the many problems with the Peterson case was the jury wasn't sequestered and the media went nuts with anti-Peterson coverage.


Scott Peterson's guilty. (none / 0) (#59)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 03:22:06 AM EST

That was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, the coverage of the case was excessive, but that does not negate Peterson's culpability and guilt in the deaths of his pregnant wife and their near-term unborn son.

(Of course, if someone is going to base their opinion of Peterson per the fate suffered by Ben Affleck's haplessly silly cad of a husband at the hands of Rosamund Pike's cartoonishly psychotic wife in the atrociously overrated movie "Gone Girl," that person is obviously beyond help.)

As for D'Souza, aka "the man who would be white," he pleaded guilty to avoid trial on the more serious charges. From Zachary Roth at TPM:

"D'Souza knowingly had his mistress and his assistant make $10,000 contributions to a GOP candidate, with the understanding that he'd pay them back - a clear scheme to get around individual contribution limits. The mistress even told her husband, in a conversation he recorded, that D'Souza had told her that if caught, he planned to eventually plead guilty, though not before first trying to 'get his story out there.' That "story," it seemed, was that he had been targeted by the Justice Department because of his (unhinged and racist) attacks on President Obama - a claim the judge in the case called 'nonsense.'"

This right-wing asshat is clearly not as smart as he seems to think he is. He received probation and community service, and yet he still balked at even doing that. The notion that some people see him as a victim of government overreach is both nonsensical and laughable.

Aloha.


I'm not the only one who had issues with that (none / 0) (#67)
by McBain on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 11:19:07 AM EST

trial and verdict. Jeralyn and others in TL wrote quit a bit about that case. You can find most of it here.

There was plenty of suspicion but not really enough proof to convict of murder. There are other possibilities of how his wife died.

I do agree that Gone Girl was overrated.


: The jury quite obviously disagreed. (none / 0) (#72)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 05, 2018 at 09:58:00 PM EST

McBain: "There was plenty of suspicion but not really enough proof to convict of murder. There are other possibilities of how his wife died."
That's why Peterson's currently in San Quentin.

Misstatements to Federal Police (none / 0) (#29)
by linea on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 08:20:01 PM EST

Blah blah blah.

I'm going to ignore the hater-8-ers and the predictable irrational hysteria to most any of my posts.

Yes, I'm strongly opposed to the Federal statute of `making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001)' and want to see it repealed. Yes, in my opinion this is an obscene law.

I disagree with the entirety of Yman's assertion that `Allowing witnesses to give false information to federal investigators without any consequences would undermine the entire system of federal law enforcement - and the same applies at the local level."

There is no `local level' equivalent. When dealing with state and city police, you can be confused and make misstatements to local law enforcement without violating a crime. This Federal law should be repealed and the issue handled properly when actual perjury has occurred in court. My opinion.

However, I did structure that post wrong. It should have read:

I feel Martha Stewart should be pardoned. It is my opinion that the federal `false information' statute is unreasonable, that it is arbitrary applied, and it is my understanding that it is more strict than actual perjury before a court. I consider it an obscene law that is often used to destroy people where there is no underlying crime. In my opinion, until this law is overturned, any attorney who lets any of her clients speak to any federal agent for any reason is committing gross negligent misfeasance in representing their client.

So you have no basis ... (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 09:28:08 PM EST

... only feelings.

Could've been a much shorter answer.

BTW - Try to avoid straying outside of "feelings" and "opinions" into facts and law. Leave the latter to those who know what they're talking about. For example, your latest utterly false claim (shall we call it "predictable irrational hysteria"?):

There is no `local level' equivalent. When dealing with state and city police, you can be confused and make misstatements to local law enforcement without violating a crime.

Actually, your first problem is you're starting with a completely false premise. It is NOT a federal crime to be "confused" or make unintentional "misstatements" to federal investigators. 18 USC 1001 requires that the false statement be "knowingly and willfully" done, which means that the statement must have been made with an intent to deceive, a design to induce belief in the falsity or to mislead. Moreover, there are absolutely state laws that make it a crime to lie to law enforcement officers. To claim otherwise is - frankly - ridiculous. Here in New Jersey alone there are several that apply, depending on what you're lying about and the consequences of the lies - but you can start with these two general statutes - N.J.S.A. § 2C:28-4 and N.J.S.A. § 2C:29-3(7), the latter of which specifically states it is a crime to ""give false information to a law enforcement officer".


You post is so nonsensical I hate to respond (1.17 / 6) (#34)
by linea on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 11:18:11 PM EST

We're not talking about filing a false police report with the intent to implicate another in a crime or providing a false identity to police when arrested.

Under the US federal statute, you can tell the truth and be charged with this felony crime because the federal police investigator thinks your lying or because it contradicts someone else who he thinks is more truthful.

My sincere conviction, charges of perjury belong with a court and with statements made in court - not with some local or federal policeman misreading his hastily written notes of what he thinks you said and then charging you with a felony. It's particularly egregious when people are charged with this crime absent an underlying (actual) crime.

I'm astounded, once again, but not surprised at the bizarro-world that is this forum. Seriously, I'm the lone advocate for abolishing this obscene federal statute? Typical.


"Nonsensical"? Heh (5.00 / 7) (#39)
by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 07:58:58 AM EST

No. I understand you have no education in law, but reading shouldn't be difficult. The first statute relating to giving false information to police was one example of several types of false information that can lead to a criminal charge here in NJ. I can give you several more, if you'd like. The second statute - just like the federal statute - specifically addresses lying to a police officer, which is why I spelled it out for you so you wouldn't get "confused".

My sincere conviction, charges of perjury belong with a court and with statements made in court - not with some local or federal policeman misreading his hastily written notes of what he thinks you said and then charging you with a felony. It's particularly egregious when people are charged with this crime absent an underlying (actual) crime.
I'm astounded, once again, but not surprised at the bizarro-world that is this forum. Seriously, I'm the lone advocate for abolishing this obscene federal statute? Typical.

As far as your "sincere convictions", I couldn't care less. Perhaps your position would be more convincing if it was supported by actual facts/evidence rather than just feelings. For example, if you cited some evidence to support your claims that the statute was arbitrarily applied, particularly as it relates to the case(s) being discussed. Or if you didn't make ridiculously false claims about state statutes, even after it's spelled out for you.

As far as your typical pointing -the-finger at others and proclaiming yourself the victim with "more progressive" opinions, well ... it's always good for a chuckle.


Right.. (none / 0) (#35)
by jondee on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 11:33:09 PM EST

And you're not surprisingly the lone advocate for prioritizing the pardoning of a wealthy celebrity white woman over thousands of others in this country more in need and at least as deserving of a pardon as Martha Stewart.

Speaking of bizarro.


I wonder (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 05:55:54 AM EST

if Martha Stewart would even want a pardon if it had to come from Trump. She has gone on with her life and seems to be doing fine.


Jeralyn (none / 0) (#36)
by linea on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 11:47:47 PM EST

Jeralyn wrote that she believes Martha Stewart should never have been convicted - and I agree - so I think I'm in good company.

I can't say I know Jeralyn`s position on the federal felony statute of `false statements' (18 U.S.C. § 1001).

Perhaps my opinion is more progressive but I would pardon all those convicted without an serious underling crime and abolish the law. It's a horrible federal statute. But that's my opinion.

OH MY GOD! I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION!


: By all means have a different opinion (5.00 / 8) (#40)
by jondee on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 08:50:19 AM EST

though, I'd advise you to can the trolly, self-involved "bizarro world that is this forum" crap if you care at all about being tolerated and taken seriously around here.

: Jeralyn is a criminal defense counsel. (none / 0) (#60)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 03:38:22 AM EST

If I remember her position correctly, it was that Martha Stewart was singled out for selective prosecution on insider stock trading due to her celebrity. Given that she was charged and tried in New York City, home of Wall Street (where such insider deals occur more often than not), I won't disagree with that assessment. That said, the evidence that Stewart did engage in insider trading and then lied about it to investigators was conclusive enough for a jury to convict her at trial on all four counts.

There are significant problems with (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by Peter G on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 10:49:03 AM EST

the use and misuse of the federal false statements statute but they are not what Linea says they are. First of all, the making of written false statements on official forms (like the D'Sousa and Stewart cases) is covered by this law, and this use of it is not as readily subject to abuse as the application of sec 1001 to oral statements. The main problem is that federal law enforcement officers do not record their interviews. So charges under this statute can be built on the agents' version (they always travel in pairs, so they can back each other up) of what the question was and what the answer was, while the subject -- now accused of a crime and thus seen as having a bias in their own favor -- has to offer a competing recollection, in a two-against-one set-up. The agents, knowing what they are up to, also probably wrote a self-serving memo summarizing the conversation soon afterwards, while the subject has rarely done so. There's more, but that's enough to start. All that said, the solution is not repeal but reform.
And it is utterly untrue that there are no local equivalents. To the contrary, I would guess that there is a similar criminal statute in every state's penal code. Here is the one in Washington State, where Linea lives, for example. To my reading (not being a Wash state attorney) it is even broader (in some ways) and more susceptible to abuse than the federal statute.


SHORTER TALK LEFT DEBATE (1.00 / 7) (#56)
by linea on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 12:59:48 AM EST

Yman: `Allowing witnesses to give false information to federal investigators without any consequences would undermine the entire system of federal law enforcement... and I hate Linea."

Peter G: "There are significant problems with the use and misuse of the federal false statements statute... and I hate Linea.'

Yman: `So we are in complete agreement on the federal `false information' statute?

Peter G: `We both ridicule Linea's strong opposition to the statue by either asserting that law enforcement would collapse without it or by pointing out some legal nuance where she erred when she was voicing her opposition to the statute, so yes we agree.'


Should not be necessary to say (5.00 / 5) (#63)
by Peter G on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 09:34:42 AM EST

but I feel the need (note proper use of "feel") to say: (1) This is a total misrepresentation of my position; and (2) I do not hate Linea, or anyone else who posts here. I do try to correct errors in others' posts that are within my area of expertise. And I do feel frustration when the same mistakes are repeated without thoughtful response to corrections (be that either acceptance of or engagement with the correction).


: Peter, (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Zorba on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 02:34:46 PM EST

You have been more than patient with her.
Especially when she starts spouting ad hominem attacks directed at, not just individual commenters, but at most of us.
This is over-the-top, highly inappropriate, and I'm surprised that Jeralyn hasn't banned her for it, or at least issued a severe warning and a substsntial time-out.

Oh for f*&k's sake. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by vml68 on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 12:51:47 PM EST

Most of us here would have been glad to have had Jeralyn ban you a long time ago.
PeterG on the other hand has been about as supportive of you as a person can be without qualifying for sainthood.
Your comments only have to be marginally on point for him to uprate them. Even when you go on one of your hysterical victimhood diatribes, you still get a measured response from him.

Seriously, get help. You are in desperate need of it.


AND!! (1.00 / 4) (#57)
by linea on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 01:31:29 AM EST

There simply isn't any state or local law comparably to this federal statute. Certainly not the WA State misdemeanor charge of `misleading a public servant' and one needs to be going out of their way to obfuscate and disengenously make such assertions.

This is a US defence blog -- I've asserted my strong opposition to the federal felony `false information' statute and what I get is a ridiculous demand that I justify "On what basis do you conclude it's unreasonable and arbitrarily applied, let alone "obscene"?

I'm opposed to this federal felony statute. It's unfair, unjust, and obscene Apparently, some here are too doltish to understand that. Fine. Once again, we have a different opinion.


Yes, the WA state law I cited (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Peter G on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 09:37:39 AM EST

is a misdemeanor. Still a crime. But with a less weighty maximum sentence and less extensive collateral consequences. So there is that.


Opinions unsupported by facts (4.50 / 2) (#61)
by Yman on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 07:45:44 AM EST

... aren't convincing. "Feelings" are not convincing. If you want to convince people, facts and evidence are convincing. Repeatedly playing the victim is just tedious.

There simply isn't any state or local law comparably to this federal statute. Certainly not the WA State misdemeanor charge of `misleading a public servant' and one needs to be going out of their way to obfuscate and disengenously make such assertions

Peter is neither obfuscating or bring disingenuous by pointing out the obvious - just like to law, there are state laws against lying to investigators. In fact, the NJ statute I gave you (that you chose to ignore) is a second degree felony with harsher penalties than the federal statute. To promote this obviously false trope is just ignorance. To repeatedly do it when proven wrong by attorneys who know be is just lying.


: Nothing quite like going down the (5.00 / 4) (#65)
by Anne on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 10:37:24 AM EST

rhetorical rabbit hole with linea - complete with foot-stanping!
Your and Peter's patience is to be commended, even if the end result is pretty much always the same.
Lordy.

Out of curiosity (none / 0) (#46)
by smott on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 01:14:23 PM EST

Why would anyone give an interview in a non-recorded 1 against 2, 'if we disagree later, I'm out-numbered' environment?
Are they compelled? If so don't they get a lawyer present?


Human nature is such that the average person, (none / 0) (#51)
by Peter G on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 03:16:10 PM EST

confronted unexpectedly with seemingly accusatory questions from two federal agents who pretend not to know much yet about the investigation they are pursuing, will deny wrongdoing and try to explain suspicious circumstances. No, legally these interviews are not considered compelled or coerced, and the agents never say otherwise. So no, you do not have to answer such questions. And yes, someone always has the right to say, "I don't think I should discuss this with you without first speaking with a lawyer." And no, if you had your wits about you, no one would participate. But many if not most people do.


And unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled (none / 0) (#53)
by Peter G on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 06:14:26 PM EST

that there is no implied exception to the statute for an instinctive "exculpatory no."


: Re: "exculpatory no." (1.33 / 3) (#58)
by linea on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 01:58:12 AM EST

It is my sincere conviction that the federal felony statute of `false statements' (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is an obscene law and the fact that it imposes `criminal liability for a false statement consisting merely of an "exculpatory no"` makes it even more obscene.
I'm sorry that the residents of this forum live in a bizarro world where this isn't apparent and where some are trying to justify this law citing some absurd delusion that justice and law enforcement will collapse if the US doesn't have this unfair, unjust, obscene law.
Sorry!! Maybe y'all should consider a box of chocolates.

I talked to a long term FBI (none / 0) (#55)
by MKS on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 07:54:16 PM EST

agent, who was fairly senior. I said I don't get why suspects would talk to him. He said he never had any problem, that almost everyone feels compelled to talk to him.

A need to please and follow authority figures, and none are bigger than the G-Men.


: Probably some of them (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by jondee on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 11:51:15 AM EST

don't want to appear to be hiding something.

Edit (none / 0) (#30)
by linea on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 08:52:59 PM EST

The post above should have read:

`you can be confused and make misstatements and even lie to local law enforcement without violating a crime.'


Wish the press had asked (none / 0) (#5)
by Anne on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM EST

Sarah Sanders if Trump was able to restrain himself from grabbing Kardashian's lady parts...inquiring minds and all that.

I have no problem with her lobbying Trump for the pardon, but in her advocacy for this inmate, she had a golden opportunity to present a credible case that there are untold thousands of people locked up for non-violent drug offenses on account of draconian drug laws - the kind Sessions is working overtime to make sure are being enforced - and these people deserve at least some consideration for release/commutation.

Maybe she did do that, I don't know, but I have a hard time picturing Trump doing anything more than possibly pardoning this one person, for his good friend Kim, who's married to Kanye.

As for DeSouza, what an ugly soul he is. Ugly, small of mind and heart, skin-crawlingly bigoted. There you have it, folks, this is the kind of person Trump will pardon. Trump's kind of people.

I can't take it anymore.

: You have to be pretty bad (none / 0) (#6)
by KeysDan on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 11:52:51 AM EST

to be dis-invited (in Feb 2018) from a speaking engagement at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The CPAC straw was D'Souza's mocking of the Parkland, Fl teenager survivors protesting assault weapons on twitter. "worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs."

: So d'Sousa gloats... (none / 0) (#8)
by desertswine on Fri Jun 01, 2018 at 01:54:41 PM EST

Dinesh D'Souza, conservative commentator and filmmaker, wasted no time gloating about his presidential pardon on Thursday, lashing out at Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney who prosecuted him and was later fired by Donald Trump.
"KARMA IS A BITCH DEPT: @PreetBharara wanted to destroy a fellow Indian American to advance his career.Then he got fired & I got pardoned." D'Souza tweeted. "Obama & his stooges tried to extinguish my American dream & destroy my faith in America."

: He's taking applications (none / 0) (#45)
by smott on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 01:10:39 PM EST

For a new First Lady since FLOTUS flew the COOPUS

Manafort and Flynn (none / 0) (#14)
by smott on Sat Jun 02, 2018 at 11:13:10 AM EST

Notable that he has not tried to pardon either of these two traitors.

Presumably he can't because he cannot pardon co-conspirators.

Does the absence of attempt mean he is afraid to test the law here?

Agree, (none / 0) (#49)
by KeysDan on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 01:29:54 PM EST

that Rod Blagojevich's sentence of 14 years was out of proportion. Indeed, prior to sentencing, TL had discussion of a fair sentence, and I felt that six or seven years would fit.

However, I do not agree that Blago should never have been convicted. Blago was public corruption personified. He was convicted, on second trial, of 17 remaining charges---the most notable, the selling of the US Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama's election as president.

But, Blago was long involved in pay to play schemes for personal gain on other fronts. Indeed, he was convicted of shaking down a Children's Hospital in Chicago...campaign funds for state funding. It was the Director of the Children's Hospital who informed the FBI of the extortion, and Blago's expletive-laced demand in exchange for his
"golden" senate appointment was caught on FBI wiretapping initiated by the shakedown reporting.

The Supreme Court turned down appeals for Blago's length of sentence, twice. And, Trump's DOJ urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal.

Celebrity Pardon. (none / 0) (#50)
by KeysDan on Sun Jun 03, 2018 at 01:54:54 PM EST

Trump is, in effect, pardoning Kim Jung Un. The guy whose expressed aim is to annihilate US cities, without recantation. Kim invited to meet with Trump, Trump immediately accepted, and the meeting in Singapore looks like it will require the US to pay for Kim's $6,000/night luxury hotel suite. No word on his 300 or so N.Korean delegation. Kim is pleading hardship, what with all that money going to missiles aimed at Hawaii. Trump's dilemma is how to pay for the hotel bill without offending the poverty-stricken Kim...maybe Michael Cohen's Stormy Daniels account has at least $130,000 left.

And, Trump has already pardoned the N. Korea spy, inviting him, unscheduled, to the Oval Office where he received a joke-like birthday card letter from Kim. A very interesting one, the contents were put up for auction to reporters. But, he never read it, but it was interesting.

Planning is, like the meeting schedule, a roller coaster, but still at the clicky stage of the ride. No definitions. Denuke for Kim is that the US remove nukes from S. Korea/Japan areas. For US. it is, well, that changes by the minute.

Trump wants a win, nothing good, but something he can sell. Trump has made it so that we appreciate this mess over the only Trump/Bolton alternative...fire and fury for little rocket man. And, us.

Given the outrageous claims (none / 0) (#62)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 09:16:54 AM EST

Asserted by Trump and his wingman, he could have killed Comey and he could not be indicted - that he can pardon himself, (seriously, they said that) I begin to think Mueller might subpoena Trump. Just to clear the legal air.

I can't believe given the rising hysteria this will not happen soon. He will either subpoena him or issue the report on obstruction.

By July, I'm thinkin

Gahd, its lile the (none / 0) (#66)
by desertswine on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 11:09:50 AM EST

Revenge of the Bourbons.


: The boy has a bit of a faraway (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by jondee on Mon Jun 04, 2018 at 11:46:07 AM EST

wistful, someone-get-me-out-of-here look.