Gonna go read this, but congrats to my former colleagues at Sidley, who represented one of the Bridgegate defendants.https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1258396986472087552 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Kagan wrote the unanimous verdict. That’s right. Kagan. Can’t wait to see this Bridgegate result get spun by CNN and MSNBC. But they will likely just ignore it. What a disastrous mess. Prosecutorial abuse at an obscene level here. You can’t make up crimes.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DawgMan78 @baseballcrank
So is the idea that the prosecutor should have looked more carefully at the "fraud" definition requiring property ? Is the idea that if they had prosecuted under a different charge, it would have stuck? 'Conspiracy', perhaps? (genuine question, I am trying to understand this)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tonywolfness
The fraud statutes cover schemes to get property or kickbacks, which the prosecutors knew & ignored the law. And they *were* charged with conspiracy, but conspiracy is only a crime if you conspired to commit a crime.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
interesting. Thanks, Dan. From what I know, it would have needed to have been a statue that encompassed 'public harm & inconvenience to citizens to make a political point' or 'public nuisance' kind of stuff, which may not exist in federal. "Citizen harassment?" re: conspiracy? :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It doesn't exist in federal law.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.