Discussion for article #234598
He went to the Giuliani School of Law.
He might be a camera seeking blowhard, but if recollection serves, the federal appeals court’s dismissal of insider trading convictions was more due to them re-defining what insider trading was (greatly narrowing it’s scope) than anything particularly unusual about the cases themselves.
That I’ve seen a couple of AP hit-pieces on him thus far might speak more about the enemies that he’s made and their influence than anything. I suspect that the next USA who’s considering when to bring charges in financial cases might make note of the, um, critical treatment that he’s getting here.
Bharara is just the most obvious symptom of what has happened to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department under Eric Holder and the federal judiciary’s loathing of him and it. They only go after cases and charges that in their view are sure convictions, and then they pile on. Many federal judges—from the Supreme Court on down— are becoming quite annoyed. Just look at the majority and dissenting opinions in Yates v. United States (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/yates-v-united-states/) (and better yet, listen to the oral argument, which is available on that website)where both sides of a divided Court were annoyed at the Justice Department filing charges under Sarbanes-Oxley that could have resulted in a fisherman getting 20 years for throwing 3 tiny fish overboard.
TPM— you want the bigger picture, look at the Justice Department overreach, and the judicial and jury reactions to it across the country. It’s happening in my cases, and all over.
TPM— you want the bigger picture, look at the Justice Department overreach, and the judicial and jury reactions to it across the country. It’s happening in my cases, and all over.
Overreach? When the head of Countrywide wasnt prosecuted? When the CEOs who caused trillions in personal wealth to vanish, who are still committing some of the same crimes today get a slap on the wrist (if that) are not prosecuted at all???
I see that as “no reach” at all
Now you want to talk overreach…Aaron Schwartz. That was overreach…as is the DOJ on most cases involving IP law
Read what I said— they only go for cases they think are sure convictions. That means wiretaps, confessions, documents, videos, etc. Most financial crimes are done by people smart enough not to talk about this stuff on the phone or send emails about it. The overreach I am talking about is the heavy prosecution of street crimes that have traditionally been the province of state courts. The state prosecutors are usually all too happy to hand these over because they cannot dream of getting the sentences the feds can get, even with the related sentencing guidelines Holder pushed through. Also, when the feds convict them, they are jailed on the federal dime.