For those of you who are wondering why Trump seems to get so much leeway, this is why. The prosecutors and judge have to be perfect in their process and their treatment of the defendant, otherwise a conviction can be thrown out like this.
And for those of you complaining about the two-tier justice system, you’re 100% correct. Because if someone without the resources of Weinstein or Trump were in a similar situation, they probably wouldn’t be able to appeal at all.
At least in Weinstein’s case , he won’t be released right away, since California has also convicted him. And this is, ironically, a good thing for Trump, also, because he now has something to talk about that won’t run afoul of the gag order.
Yes, but not just wealth for it’s own sake, wealth that can be used to buy the services of good defense lawyers, who know how to exercise every right available to the defense.
Or, in Trump’s case, just kinda OK lawyers who get a lot of shit wrong, but know how to file all the paperwork, so that every now and then one of their motions sticks.
I really wish we could dispense the myth of “good lawyers” in this context. That’s not to say that there aren’t such things as good and bad lawyers–there are–but “wealthy clients get away with stuff because they can afford better lawyers” doesn’t really tell the story. Even if you have okay lawyers who fuck up a lot, if you have all the money in the world (or they think you do), you can get them to just keep working to try to fix it and throw new shit at the wall until something sticks. Normal people eventually run out of money.
The “every right available to the defense” list is an exhaustible list. If your client is Donald Trump and your goal is to stall, well, many or even most defense lawyers are going to know everything that goes on that list. It doesn’t matter whether they charge $100 or $1000 an hour, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re fresh out of law school or have been practicing 30 years. A public defender can stall a case if he wants to.
Donald Trump and other rich litigants aren’t buying “better lawyers”. Those lawyers don’t know more or have unique, novel trial strategies that work magic on the courts. And you can watch a trial to see that: There isn’t a huge qualitative difference between the case that OJ’s very expensive defense counsel put on and the case that Marcia Clark (a public servant) put on. Why? Because both sides spent a fortune. They didn’t get better lawyers. They just got more of their lawyers’ time. Simpson spent maybe $6 million on his lawyers, and the taxpayers of California spent $9 million on theirs. Johnnie Cochran was an extremely effective trial lawyer, but I don’t think anyone would say any of Trump’s lawyers is a once-in-a-generation talent.
The only reason you don’t want a public defender is that the public defender is overworked. He has hundreds or thousands of clients and simply can’t devote time to you. The public defenders in my jurisdiction are absolutely the smartest, best experienced criminal lawyers in town. Why? Because they’ve worked hundreds of criminal trials! But those guys don’t have a thousand hours to look up case law in order to exhaust the list of rights for a defendant who needs to put off getting convicted until after November. Even Alina Habba can figure out the whole list if you throw an arbitrarily large pile of cash at her and let her put a room full of junior associates on it for a month.
It’s not better lawyers. It’s just more lawyer time.
And bribes. It’s also bribes.
I say all this because I think a lot of people think that more expensive lawyer = better lawyer, and that’s just not true. For many, many cases, hiring a cheaper lawyer can get you much further if it means your money buys more of your lawyer’s time. That’s the difference between being able to keep your lawyer if you have to appeal and not being able to appeal at all. It’s the difference between going to trial and taking a less favorable settlement, and it’s the difference between being able to pay for more hearings (say, for example, if you need to jam up the proceedings with frivolous motions) and going straight to the merits.
I don’t generally do criminal work, but many, many more of the sad or frustrating “this is the end of the line” talks I’ve had with clients have had to do with the clients’ financial situations than with the actual merits of their cases. At some point it’s often just not cost effective for most people to pursue further litigation, and it doesn’t matter who the lawyer is. If you’re a member of the 1%, however–well, then you never have to worry about that. Just keep litigating forever, and it doesn’t matter whether your lawyer is Clarence Darrow or Rudy fucking Giuliani.
The shortest part of your post is about bribes, but a side topic on that is that those expensive lawyers also know judges outside the courtroom and can apply pressure to get minor judgements to go their way. Did the “affluenza” judge really believe that judgement, or did he feel pressure from that social circle? Did Brock Turner’s judge give him a very light sentence because he felt that was appropriate for sexual assault, or did he know the family? In the last case, it might just be an old man who doesn’t think sexual assault is a bad crime.
Expensive lawyers also have political hook ups. They go golfing with the local rich people. Their kids are friends with the rich families’ friends. And when those people need legal advice, they ask the expensive lawyers for advice. The expensive lawyers then start knowing who is doing what, and more importantly, who’s breaking or has broken the law. They can then use this information to ask for a favor to stay quiet.
The Suits show did this a lot in the first couple of seasons, but so much so that it became boring in the latter seasons. House of Cards and Ozark also demonstrated how back door dealing can get things done with the right motivation.
Granted these are TV shows, but if I’m not mistaken I believe one of the Clinton’s said HoC is very close to what actually happens.
Case and point, Trump’s lawyers are currently arguing in front of the Supreme Court that presidents should be allowed to assassinate political rivals. They know they won’t win, but have already succeeded in their goal to delay.
Seems like this really points out our justice system is almost nonexistent. If you have money, you can stay out of prison regardless of guilt, and if you’re poor you can be punished regardless of innocence.
At least with OJ, he got locked up for a decade for theft and kidnapping. Not exactly life in prison but a decently long sentence. Cosby spent less than a year and a half in prison for raping dozens of women.
Weinstein still has 16 years for his California conviction.
Only two of those people were proven guilty in court and then got out later due to their wealth and power. The other two are innocent until proven guilty and 1 of them is dead and died an innocent man.
It was because the defense was able to cast doubt on the evidence because of how terribly it was handled. The best evidence in the world won’t help if the police and the prosecution screw it all up.
OJ wrote a book titled “if I did it”, and then proceeded to explain in great detail how he did it. How much more obvious can it get that he did it and got away with it?
Trump has gotten leeway bcz he’s a former president. If he was just a real estate developer/business person amd had these same criminal proceedings against him, he be in prison already. There are plenty of examples of people sharing state secrets, and working for/with foreign governments as agents on their behalf and they’ve ended up in prison with life sentences pretty damn quick.
Let’s also be very clear that the court is made up of (usually white men) people. There are plenty of appeals cases where the court goes to great lengths to keep someone in prison even when the law is 100% on the side of the wrongfully convicted.
I have read a state supreme court say “yes that is the law (to exonerate them) but still we’re going to find it’s ok (to keep them locked up)”. Like, that was almost verbatim the opinion delivered. Can they do that? Well - yeah. Sure the appellant could try for the SCOTUS but #1 they had no money and #2 they’d lose there too, now.
That is one of the other reasons the criminal clown has gotten away with so much for so long.
In the SCOTUS case you are mentioning, they decided that actual innocence didn’t matter as long as the proper procedures were followed all along the way.
It kinda does matter though. If you are innocent of a crime, and you can prove it, then you should be released from prison immediately, and paid out the ass for the amount of time and life experiences stolen from you, full stop, period.
If that doesn’t bother you then you need to go take a look in the mirror and think long and hard about what it is that’s making you a crappy human being.
You’ll have to explain how mentioning the reasoning of the court makes me a bad person. It’s almost as if you acting in bad faith, don’t know what you are talking about, and are stuck in edgy mode.
How am I acting in bad faith? If someone is innocent (and I’m not familiar with this court case for the record), and the Supreme Court decided the fact that they are innocent is immaterial to the case, that should be riot level shit.
They are basically saying if we mistakenly arrest you and put you in prison for something you didn’t do, we can just say oopsie and keep you there as long as we followed proper procedures. That is super fucked up.
Meaning they want minorities to sit down and shut up, which is more liberal than Republicans. But they still want the oligicarhial society where money gets you everything like Republicans.
It’s not what people want, but the rich bought both major parties, so we don’t get a choice the vast majority of the time.
Neoliberal economic policies have nothing to do with liberal social policies. They are as linked as the German Nationalist Socialist Party was to socialist economic policies. Whenever these two words come up, someone invariably links the two as though they are spiritual cousins, and I don’t like that. It should be very clearly stated each time these words are conflated, or compared, that neoliberalism liberal, and that people who would describe themselves as liberal are entirely against neoliberal economic policies, which are largely carried out by corrupted politicians on both sides of the political aisle. Lest we mince words; neoliberals are at the opposite end of the political spectrum to liberals.
No, you’re confused, bro. ‘Liberal’ is both a political identifier people use for themselves and others, and a series of policies and political ideals. Neoliberalism is a series of economic policies practiced by conservatives, regardless of the (D) or ® next to their names. If we were going to describe someone as a neoliberal, which people generally do not, the person being described would be almost the exact opposite of someone who would be described as liberal. The thing you said about being fiscally one way and socially another isn’t the definition of neoliberalism, that’s just an old line people say when they’re ashamed of being conservative and don’t want to come off dumb.
For those of you who are wondering why Trump seems to get so much leeway, this is why. The prosecutors and judge have to be perfect in their process and their treatment of the defendant, otherwise a conviction can be thrown out like this.
And for those of you complaining about the two-tier justice system, you’re 100% correct. Because if someone without the resources of Weinstein or Trump were in a similar situation, they probably wouldn’t be able to appeal at all.
At least in Weinstein’s case , he won’t be released right away, since California has also convicted him. And this is, ironically, a good thing for Trump, also, because he now has something to talk about that won’t run afoul of the gag order.
OJ gets out of it, Trump gets out of it, Cosby gets out of it, Weinstein gets out of it… the common thread here is wealth.
Yes, but not just wealth for it’s own sake, wealth that can be used to buy the services of good defense lawyers, who know how to exercise every right available to the defense.
Or, in Trump’s case, just kinda OK lawyers who get a lot of shit wrong, but know how to file all the paperwork, so that every now and then one of their motions sticks.
I really wish we could dispense the myth of “good lawyers” in this context. That’s not to say that there aren’t such things as good and bad lawyers–there are–but “wealthy clients get away with stuff because they can afford better lawyers” doesn’t really tell the story. Even if you have okay lawyers who fuck up a lot, if you have all the money in the world (or they think you do), you can get them to just keep working to try to fix it and throw new shit at the wall until something sticks. Normal people eventually run out of money.
The “every right available to the defense” list is an exhaustible list. If your client is Donald Trump and your goal is to stall, well, many or even most defense lawyers are going to know everything that goes on that list. It doesn’t matter whether they charge $100 or $1000 an hour, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re fresh out of law school or have been practicing 30 years. A public defender can stall a case if he wants to.
Donald Trump and other rich litigants aren’t buying “better lawyers”. Those lawyers don’t know more or have unique, novel trial strategies that work magic on the courts. And you can watch a trial to see that: There isn’t a huge qualitative difference between the case that OJ’s very expensive defense counsel put on and the case that Marcia Clark (a public servant) put on. Why? Because both sides spent a fortune. They didn’t get better lawyers. They just got more of their lawyers’ time. Simpson spent maybe $6 million on his lawyers, and the taxpayers of California spent $9 million on theirs. Johnnie Cochran was an extremely effective trial lawyer, but I don’t think anyone would say any of Trump’s lawyers is a once-in-a-generation talent.
The only reason you don’t want a public defender is that the public defender is overworked. He has hundreds or thousands of clients and simply can’t devote time to you. The public defenders in my jurisdiction are absolutely the smartest, best experienced criminal lawyers in town. Why? Because they’ve worked hundreds of criminal trials! But those guys don’t have a thousand hours to look up case law in order to exhaust the list of rights for a defendant who needs to put off getting convicted until after November. Even Alina Habba can figure out the whole list if you throw an arbitrarily large pile of cash at her and let her put a room full of junior associates on it for a month.
It’s not better lawyers. It’s just more lawyer time.
And bribes. It’s also bribes.
I say all this because I think a lot of people think that more expensive lawyer = better lawyer, and that’s just not true. For many, many cases, hiring a cheaper lawyer can get you much further if it means your money buys more of your lawyer’s time. That’s the difference between being able to keep your lawyer if you have to appeal and not being able to appeal at all. It’s the difference between going to trial and taking a less favorable settlement, and it’s the difference between being able to pay for more hearings (say, for example, if you need to jam up the proceedings with frivolous motions) and going straight to the merits.
I don’t generally do criminal work, but many, many more of the sad or frustrating “this is the end of the line” talks I’ve had with clients have had to do with the clients’ financial situations than with the actual merits of their cases. At some point it’s often just not cost effective for most people to pursue further litigation, and it doesn’t matter who the lawyer is. If you’re a member of the 1%, however–well, then you never have to worry about that. Just keep litigating forever, and it doesn’t matter whether your lawyer is Clarence Darrow or Rudy fucking Giuliani.
The shortest part of your post is about bribes, but a side topic on that is that those expensive lawyers also know judges outside the courtroom and can apply pressure to get minor judgements to go their way. Did the “affluenza” judge really believe that judgement, or did he feel pressure from that social circle? Did Brock Turner’s judge give him a very light sentence because he felt that was appropriate for sexual assault, or did he know the family? In the last case, it might just be an old man who doesn’t think sexual assault is a bad crime.
Expensive lawyers also have political hook ups. They go golfing with the local rich people. Their kids are friends with the rich families’ friends. And when those people need legal advice, they ask the expensive lawyers for advice. The expensive lawyers then start knowing who is doing what, and more importantly, who’s breaking or has broken the law. They can then use this information to ask for a favor to stay quiet.
The Suits show did this a lot in the first couple of seasons, but so much so that it became boring in the latter seasons. House of Cards and Ozark also demonstrated how back door dealing can get things done with the right motivation.
Granted these are TV shows, but if I’m not mistaken I believe one of the Clinton’s said HoC is very close to what actually happens.
Case and point, Trump’s lawyers are currently arguing in front of the Supreme Court that presidents should be allowed to assassinate political rivals. They know they won’t win, but have already succeeded in their goal to delay.
Seems like this really points out our justice system is almost nonexistent. If you have money, you can stay out of prison regardless of guilt, and if you’re poor you can be punished regardless of innocence.
except when they forget to check the box for a jury
or misspell their own name 4 times in the same document (reported recently)
At least with OJ, he got locked up for a decade for theft and kidnapping. Not exactly life in prison but a decently long sentence. Cosby spent less than a year and a half in prison for raping dozens of women.
Weinstein still has 16 years for his California conviction.
Only two of those people were proven guilty in court and then got out later due to their wealth and power. The other two are innocent until proven guilty and 1 of them is dead and died an innocent man.
Yes, they all got out of it despite all of them being guilty. Because they’re rich.
Your opinion does not make someone guilty. There was not enough evidence to convict.
Not enough evidence to convict OJ? Are you fucking joking?
If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit
He wasn’t convicted.
I’m aware. And it wasn’t because of a lack of evidence.
It was because the defense was able to cast doubt on the evidence because of how terribly it was handled. The best evidence in the world won’t help if the police and the prosecution screw it all up.
Like do you really not know what jury nullification is? For real??
OJ wrote a book titled “if I did it”, and then proceeded to explain in great detail how he did it. How much more obvious can it get that he did it and got away with it?
The nice part about that is that the Goldman family got the rights to the book and the released it with this cover:
They didn’t change the name. The ‘if’ is there. It’s in small grey letters at the top of the I.
The law is blind, and should be.
I personally am not, and prefer not to be. It is silly to think the law and a citizen should hold themselves to the same standards and methods.
Not guilty in the eyes of law is not the same as innocent.
Everyone needs to read and re-read this comment. This is precisely what is going on with Trump.
Trump has gotten leeway bcz he’s a former president. If he was just a real estate developer/business person amd had these same criminal proceedings against him, he be in prison already. There are plenty of examples of people sharing state secrets, and working for/with foreign governments as agents on their behalf and they’ve ended up in prison with life sentences pretty damn quick.
Let’s also be very clear that the court is made up of (usually white men) people. There are plenty of appeals cases where the court goes to great lengths to keep someone in prison even when the law is 100% on the side of the wrongfully convicted.
I have read a state supreme court say “yes that is the law (to exonerate them) but still we’re going to find it’s ok (to keep them locked up)”. Like, that was almost verbatim the opinion delivered. Can they do that? Well - yeah. Sure the appellant could try for the SCOTUS but #1 they had no money and #2 they’d lose there too, now.
That is one of the other reasons the criminal clown has gotten away with so much for so long.
In the SCOTUS case you are mentioning, they decided that actual innocence didn’t matter as long as the proper procedures were followed all along the way.
It kinda does matter though. If you are innocent of a crime, and you can prove it, then you should be released from prison immediately, and paid out the ass for the amount of time and life experiences stolen from you, full stop, period.
If that doesn’t bother you then you need to go take a look in the mirror and think long and hard about what it is that’s making you a crappy human being.
You’ll have to explain how mentioning the reasoning of the court makes me a bad person. It’s almost as if you acting in bad faith, don’t know what you are talking about, and are stuck in edgy mode.
How am I acting in bad faith? If someone is innocent (and I’m not familiar with this court case for the record), and the Supreme Court decided the fact that they are innocent is immaterial to the case, that should be riot level shit.
They are basically saying if we mistakenly arrest you and put you in prison for something you didn’t do, we can just say oopsie and keep you there as long as we followed proper procedures. That is super fucked up.
Yes but you said that I was a bad person for reporting this information.
I mean it’s not like Trump ever pays his bills anyway, but still, it’s the principle of the thing.
Eh…
The reason is because NY voters are so progressive, the wealthy throw insane money at statewide primaries.
This is the person that appointed the head of the appealate court.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Hochul
An “independent Democrat” that was Cuomo’s running mate and won the election after he was kicked out.
The voters didn’t want her, but because it’s NY she still beat the Republican, but it was the closest governor race in 30 years for NY.
Neoliberals want to keep the current pro-wealrhy system just as much as republicans, because they have the same donors.
Tell us you don’t know what “neoliberal” means without telling us.
“fiscally conservative, socially liberal”.
Meaning they want minorities to sit down and shut up, which is more liberal than Republicans. But they still want the oligicarhial society where money gets you everything like Republicans.
It’s not what people want, but the rich bought both major parties, so we don’t get a choice the vast majority of the time.
Neoliberal economic policies have nothing to do with liberal social policies. They are as linked as the German Nationalist Socialist Party was to socialist economic policies. Whenever these two words come up, someone invariably links the two as though they are spiritual cousins, and I don’t like that. It should be very clearly stated each time these words are conflated, or compared, that neoliberalism
liberal, and that people who would describe themselves as liberal are entirely against neoliberal economic policies, which are largely carried out by corrupted politicians on both sides of the political aisle. Lest we mince words; neoliberals are at the opposite end of the political spectrum to liberals.So you were asking just about the economic policy when I was talking about neoliberal politicians?
Sounds like you just got confused bro
No, you’re confused, bro. ‘Liberal’ is both a political identifier people use for themselves and others, and a series of policies and political ideals. Neoliberalism is a series of economic policies practiced by conservatives, regardless of the (D) or ® next to their names. If we were going to describe someone as a neoliberal, which people generally do not, the person being described would be almost the exact opposite of someone who would be described as liberal. The thing you said about being fiscally one way and socially another isn’t the definition of neoliberalism, that’s just an old line people say when they’re ashamed of being conservative and don’t want to come off dumb.
Yeah. But we were talking about neoliberals…
Specifically modern day American ones…
Like, when someone mentions Democrats, do you go on a rant about what democracy is?
When we talk about republicans, do you talk about republics?
If someone mentions a green party candidate, do you tell them it’s just blue and yello mixed together?
Yeah, neoliberals say it all the time. Not in the exact words, but that’s their stance. It’s what I said in the beginning…