Didn't Andrew Weissman get slapped down by an appeals court for excessively expansive use of conspiracy offence allegations rather then sticking to explicit laws on the offence?
-
-
Replying to @ClimateAudit @benjaminwittes
I'm not sure what you're referencing. In any case, you surely can read how the stuff charged is actually more conservative than how it has been used in the past.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @benjaminwittes
against Weissman's grandiose "conspiracy", 5th Circuit referred to "repeated exhortation against expanding federal criminal jurisdiction beyond specific federal statutes to the defining of common-law crimes" http://blog.kir.com/?p=2224 http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/05/05-20319-CR0.wpd.pdf … http://blog.kir.com/?p=3287 pic.twitter.com/gVjtI8klGa
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Supreme Court decision is http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-368P.ZO …, discussed http://blog.kir.com/?p=1999 Weissman's major convictions were overturned, but not before he'd ruined innocent people through prosecutorial misconduct. See
@sidneypowell1 Hard to convince me that he's not doing it again.2 replies 3 retweets 4 likes -
Sorry. You said you had a precedent related to conspiracy. Do you have one?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
what I linked to: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/05/05-20319-CR0.wpd.pdf … Weissman's conspiracy counts were overturned. in Russian troll example, Weissman charged conspiracy rather than FEC offences, paying no attention to exhortation from 5th Circuit overturning earlier Weissman charges.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You're saying Enron was prosecuted for election fraud? And in DC?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
for someone smart, you're going out of your way to miss point. There are thousands of specific offences in criminal code. Weissman, who has history of being overturned, likes to use conspiracy charges rather than specific offences. 5th Circ exhorted him not to. He still does it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
No. I'm discussing the law. You're treating the law like it's a tea society. The 5th Circuit does not "exhort." It writes opinions, that one of which is not relevant here. You can ignore the larger history of conspiracy in the US, or you can discuss law as it actually exists.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
you say that the 5th Circuit does not "exhort". I was quoting from a decision that used the very word "exhortation" , including the very excerpt in which the term was used, in a decision involving Andrew Weissman, Mueller's henchman.pic.twitter.com/5kprXIPjCV
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
GOOODIIIIIIIEEEE!!!!!! That's fucking irrelevant to how legal precedent works. Legal precedent works the way Ben laid out, now you searching for specific words in a document.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @ClimateAudit and
Moreover, your "exhortation" comment is totally off point, given the precedents Ben laid out, which IS the way law works.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.