Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

  1. #41
    Hates Kittens
    NonoBadDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Mountains
    Last Seen
    07-26-18 @ 12:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,226
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    You should really look at why the USSC overturned the Andersen verdict. The judge at trial gave the jury faulty instructions (that is, instructions that were not consistent with federal law), and that is why they overturned the Andersen conviction. They did not overturn the Andersen conviction because they thought the government put on a bad case, or because they thought Andersen actually innocent. The judge failed to instruct the jury that the government had the burden, under federal law, of showing that Andersen intended to break the law by shredding records. Proving positive intent is almost impossible, since intent is a private mental state to which others do not have access--this is an example of regulation that the wealthy have convinced lawmakers to legislate on their behalf, as it is a major loophole through which the most downright obviously bad behavior nevertheless gets through, and the beneficiaries thereof are almost always the 1%-ers.

    Due to the nature of the ruling, we don't know, and won't ever know, whether the jury in the case would have ruled that the government sufficiently proved intent. Nevertheless, the facts are pretty obviously damning: Enron had for years been engaged in fantasy-land accounting schemes that were collapsing the company, and Arthur Andersen had been allowing them to get away with it. An SEC investigation was in the works, and Andersen then shredded, on David Duncan's orders, records pertaining to work they had done for Enron.

    Duncan admitted in his testimony at trial that he ordered the records be shredded so they would not be available to the SEC investigators.

    The Supreme Court overturned the Andersen conviction because that in itself is not illegal. It clearly ought to be, though (see remarks above about laws that the wealthy have had legislated on their behalf).

    I have no idea what the comment is about creatively criminalizing what Merrill Lynch and Enron did with the Nigerian barges. It was clearly illegal--it's fraud to report a loan to the SEC as a sale with profits, and a bunch of investors lost their shirts as a result of Enron and Merrill lying to them. The executives in question should have received roughly the same sentence that would be imposed on someone who steals millions of dollars from regular folks--I'm guessing that'd be around 30-40 years.
    The DOJ screwed it up. They know the rules. Why would they stoop to the tactics that they did if they had a solid case? You are correct. We don't know how the jury would ahve ruled if they had the proper instructions but we could assume that they would have thrown out the case. Again that is an assumption. I will stand by my claims. Weissmann is a bad actor. The most Duncan would have received for shredding documents is obstruction. That doesn't give validity to all of the allegations made during the trial.
    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    What double-standard? I am on the left. I question every Thing about the right Wing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I'm sorry that you feel the need to defame the Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton, and that democratic institutions mean so little to you.

  2. #42
    Sage
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    5,569

    Re: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

    Quote Originally Posted by NonoBadDog View Post
    The DOJ screwed it up. They know the rules. Why would they stoop to the tactics that they did if they had a solid case? You are correct. We don't know how the jury would ahve ruled if they had the proper instructions but we could assume that they would have thrown out the case. Again that is an assumption. I will stand by my claims. Weissmann is a bad actor. The most Duncan would have received for shredding documents is obstruction. That doesn't give validity to all of the allegations made during the trial.
    Tactics? You mean, bringing a case to trial in a court of law? I've no idea what your point could be here.

    The judge was the screw up in the Andersen trial, as the USSC decision makes clear. The conviction was not overturned due to anything the prosecutors did. Judges issue instructions to juries, not prosecutors.

    I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post; it's not clear enough that I know what you're saying--not to mention that you ignored roughly 70% of my post, so while the claims you "stand by" have at least been rebutted, you're leaving mine to stand. Not that there's much you could say in response anyway, but feel free to try.

  3. #43
    Hates Kittens
    NonoBadDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Mountains
    Last Seen
    07-26-18 @ 12:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,226
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Tactics? You mean, bringing a case to trial in a court of law? I've no idea what your point could be here.

    The judge was the screw up in the Andersen trial, as the USSC decision makes clear. The conviction was not overturned due to anything the prosecutors did. Judges issue instructions to juries, not prosecutors.

    I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post; it's not clear enough that I know what you're saying--not to mention that you ignored roughly 70% of my post, so while the claims you "stand by" have at least been rebutted, you're leaving mine to stand. Not that there's much you could say in response anyway, but feel free to try.
    You ignored most of my original post. I replied to the relevant parts of your post. You choose to ignore what you choose to ignore. That isn't my problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    What double-standard? I am on the left. I question every Thing about the right Wing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I'm sorry that you feel the need to defame the Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton, and that democratic institutions mean so little to you.

  4. #44
    Sage
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    5,569

    Re: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

    Quote Originally Posted by NonoBadDog View Post
    You ignored most of my original post. I replied to the relevant parts of your post. You choose to ignore what you choose to ignore. That isn't my problem.
    The only thing I "ignored" in your original post was this:

    Mueller knows this history. Is this why he tapped Weissmann to target Paul Manafort?"
    But given what I wrote, there's no need to respond to this, because it's obviated. I'm sure Mueller does know the history, and unlike you and the author of that Hill piece, he has likely actually read the USSC decision on Andersen.

    In any case, a couple lines is not "most" of your post. You posted a bunch of shoddily supported propaganda (most of it direct quotes from the Hill piece), and now you're trying to shore it up when obviously you cannot. To repeat:

    1. Weissmann was not the problem in the Andersen trial--the judge was, as the USSC decision clearly indicates. Here's the text of the decision:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZS.html

    2. The law by which the Andersen decision was overturned is corrupt in the first place, for reasons already explained. This is a simple case of cui bono. Prosecutors should not have to prove intent, and what Andersen did ought to be illegal, even if technically it was not. The guy who ordered the documents be shredded admitted at trial that he did so in order to make them unavailable to the SEC investigation.

    3. Similarly, there was no fancy legal footwork in the Merrill Lynch case--the Nigerian barge deal was clearly illegal, and the Merrill execs ought to have gotten more time than they did. Here's a very simple summary of what happened:

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n...barge-deal.asp

    Those points cover your entire post, either directly or by fairly simple inference. By inference? See above on the question about Mueller for an example--I didn't respond directly, but in light of the points I did make, the question and the point lurking behind it lose all force. There's no reason to think Mueller or Weissmann are or were up to any shenanigans, at least not that you've posted in this thread.
    Last edited by ashurbanipal; 05-19-18 at 09:03 AM.

  5. #45
    Hates Kittens
    NonoBadDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Mountains
    Last Seen
    07-26-18 @ 12:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,226
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    The only thing I "ignored" in your original post was this:



    But given what I wrote, there's no need to respond to this, because it's obviated. I'm sure Mueller does know the history, and unlike you and the author of that Hill piece, he has likely actually read the USSC decision on Andersen.

    In any case, a couple lines is not "most" of your post. You posted a bunch of shoddily supported propaganda (most of it direct quotes from the Hill piece), and now you're trying to shore it up when obviously you cannot. To repeat:

    1. Weissmann was not the problem in the Andersen trial--the judge was, as the USSC decision clearly indicates. Here's the text of the decision:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZS.html

    2. The law by which the Andersen decision was overturned is corrupt in the first place, for reasons already explained. This is a simple case of cui bono. Prosecutors should not have to prove intent, and what Andersen did ought to be illegal, even if technically it was not. The guy who ordered the documents be shredded admitted at trial that he did so in order to make them unavailable to the SEC investigation.

    3. Similarly, there was no fancy legal footwork in the Merrill Lynch case--the Nigerian barge deal was clearly illegal, and the Merrill execs ought to have gotten more time than they did. Here's a very simple summary of what happened:

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n...barge-deal.asp

    Those points cover your entire post, either directly or by fairly simple inference. By inference? See above on the question about Mueller for an example--I didn't respond directly, but in light of the points I did make, the question and the point lurking behind it lose all force. There's no reason to think Mueller or Weissmann are or were up to any shenanigans, at least not that you've posted in this thread.
    Here is a better description in what happened in the Nigerian barge case:
    "The witness intimidation issue has been festering throughout both of the prior Enron-related criminal trials. It first arose in connection with the trial of the Nigerian Barge case in which the Task Force effectively suppressed exculpatory testimony for the defendants in that case by fingering as unindicted co-conspirators dozens of former Enron and Merrill Lynch executives who were involved in the transaction that was the basis of the prosecution. Every one of the unindicted co-conspirators declined to testify in the Nigerian Barge trial on the basis of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Consequently, four Merrill Lynch executives are serving prison sentences without having had the opportunity to present substantial amounts of exculpatory testimony and related evidence to the jury.

    Then, as noted in this earlier post, the witness intimidation issue boiled over in public during the trial of the Enron Broadband case when former Enron Broadband engineer Lawrence Ciscon dramatically testified that Enron Task Force prosecutors had repeatedly threatened him and had fingered him as a target of an indictment in attempting to dissuade him from testifying on behalf of the five Enron Broadband defendants. That dramatic testimony came on the heels of the Task Force eliciting false testimony from former Enron Broadband co-CEO Ken Rice during that trial, which was then followed by the Task Force threatening another witness in connection with her testimony regarding Rice's false testimony. As noted in this post, The Enron Broadband jury ultimately acquitted the defendants on some of the charges and could not reach a decision on the balance of the charges, resulting in re-trials of the defendants next year."
    The Complete Humiliation Of The Enron Task Force - Business Insider
    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    What double-standard? I am on the left. I question every Thing about the right Wing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I'm sorry that you feel the need to defame the Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton, and that democratic institutions mean so little to you.

  6. #46
    Sage
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    5,569

    Re: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

    Quote Originally Posted by NonoBadDog View Post
    Here is a better description in what happened in the Nigerian barge case:
    "The witness intimidation issue has been festering throughout both of the prior Enron-related criminal trials. It first arose in connection with the trial of the Nigerian Barge case in which the Task Force effectively suppressed exculpatory testimony for the defendants in that case by fingering as unindicted co-conspirators dozens of former Enron and Merrill Lynch executives who were involved in the transaction that was the basis of the prosecution. Every one of the unindicted co-conspirators declined to testify in the Nigerian Barge trial on the basis of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Consequently, four Merrill Lynch executives are serving prison sentences without having had the opportunity to present substantial amounts of exculpatory testimony and related evidence to the jury.

    Then, as noted in this earlier post, the witness intimidation issue boiled over in public during the trial of the Enron Broadband case when former Enron Broadband engineer Lawrence Ciscon dramatically testified that Enron Task Force prosecutors had repeatedly threatened him and had fingered him as a target of an indictment in attempting to dissuade him from testifying on behalf of the five Enron Broadband defendants. That dramatic testimony came on the heels of the Task Force eliciting false testimony from former Enron Broadband co-CEO Ken Rice during that trial, which was then followed by the Task Force threatening another witness in connection with her testimony regarding Rice's false testimony. As noted in this post, The Enron Broadband jury ultimately acquitted the defendants on some of the charges and could not reach a decision on the balance of the charges, resulting in re-trials of the defendants next year."
    The Complete Humiliation Of The Enron Task Force - Business Insider
    The articles you have posted so far are all propaganda. You may notice that I took care to link to neutral sources, not cheerleaders for the 1% who would love to be able to do what Enron mostly got away with doing without fear of incrimination. Business Insider is a cheerleader for those types. The claims in the article are one-sided to the point of absurdity, and the holes in logic are stunning. For example, take this part:

    Every one of the unindicted co-conspirators declined to testify in the Nigerian Barge trial on the basis of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
    The logic is supposed to work that prosecutors leaned on these potential witnesses and threatened to charge them if they gave exculpatory testimony, so they took their fifth amendment rights. Already the reader should be doing a "wtf"? If they had not themselves been guilty of a crime, they should not have feared to give testimony. The only way that kind of pressure could work is if these witnesses themselves at least strongly suspected they would be convicted by a jury. In the meantime, given that they did not testify, is there a single shred of evidence that they would have offered exculpatory testimony? Obviously not. So the author of these articles you've posted is spinning faster than an acme top greased with KY jelly...and not doing nearly as good a job at it. These flaws in logic are right on the surface, such that anyone not already in the iron grip of some ideology ought to spot them immediately. And leaving those aside, the bit you've posted is based entirely on the claims of a man who might have an ulterior motive for making these kinds of claims. How that qualifies as a "better description" is beyond me.

    Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) all the links that are presumably supposed to substantiate the claims in the second paragraph (about the broadband trial) are broken.

    Anyway, just so it doesn't get lost: the laws under which these guys mostly escaped prosecution are already corrupt themselves. One does not have to prove intent in rape, armed robbery, burgulary, etc.

  7. #47
    Hates Kittens
    NonoBadDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Mountains
    Last Seen
    07-26-18 @ 12:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,226
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    The articles you have posted so far are all propaganda. You may notice that I took care to link to neutral sources, not cheerleaders for the 1% who would love to be able to do what Enron mostly got away with doing without fear of incrimination. Business Insider is a cheerleader for those types. The claims in the article are one-sided to the point of absurdity, and the holes in logic are stunning. For example, take this part:



    The logic is supposed to work that prosecutors leaned on these potential witnesses and threatened to charge them if they gave exculpatory testimony, so they took their fifth amendment rights. Already the reader should be doing a "wtf"? If they had not themselves been guilty of a crime, they should not have feared to give testimony. The only way that kind of pressure could work is if these witnesses themselves at least strongly suspected they would be convicted by a jury. In the meantime, given that they did not testify, is there a single shred of evidence that they would have offered exculpatory testimony? Obviously not. So the author of these articles you've posted is spinning faster than an acme top greased with KY jelly...and not doing nearly as good a job at it. These flaws in logic are right on the surface, such that anyone not already in the iron grip of some ideology ought to spot them immediately. And leaving those aside, the bit you've posted is based entirely on the claims of a man who might have an ulterior motive for making these kinds of claims. How that qualifies as a "better description" is beyond me.

    Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) all the links that are presumably supposed to substantiate the claims in the second paragraph (about the broadband trial) are broken.

    Anyway, just so it doesn't get lost: the laws under which these guys mostly escaped prosecution are already corrupt themselves. One does not have to prove intent in rape, armed robbery, burgulary, etc.
    The article you used was propaganda. The one I referred to was an honest depiction of the events.
    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    What double-standard? I am on the left. I question every Thing about the right Wing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I'm sorry that you feel the need to defame the Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton, and that democratic institutions mean so little to you.

  8. #48
    Sage
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    5,569

    Re: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

    Quote Originally Posted by NonoBadDog View Post
    The article you used was propaganda. The one I referred to was an honest depiction of the events.
    What article I used was propaganda? I linked to an investopedia article and a Supreme Court decision. Feel free to say what's propaganda about either of those. In the meantime, all you're doing here is making assertions, while I've offered reasoned argument, as just about anyone would recognize.

  9. #49
    Guru TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,279

    Re: Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohenís Financial Records

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Coverup blown. Nice try, Trump
    QUESTION

    What walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, hangs around with ducks, went to duck school, and spends a good part of the day singing "I enjoy being a duck!"?

    ANSWER

    "A snowmobile."

    - Kelly Ann Conway

    NEXT ANSWER

    "When I said 'snowmobile' I didn't mean 'SNOWmobile'."

    - Kelly Ann Conway

    NEXT ANSWER

    "When I said that when I said 'snowmobile' I didn't mean 'SNOWmobile' I didn't want you to confuse it with 'snowMOBILE'."

    - Kelly Ann Conway

    NEXT ANSWER

    "The 'snowmobile' topic is old news and I don't know why you keep harping on it."

    -Kelly Ann Conway

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •