PROSECUTOR: Mueller Staff Suggests Not Interested In Justice...

[Tol]

You also think the earth is flat

Does he really?

Anyone who claims that the earth is flat, is trolling. You know how people think that Ripskater is putting on an act? Well, flat-earthers are putting on an act.

 

[Throttlehead]

Anyone who claims that the earth is flat, is trolling. You know how people think that Ripskater is putting on an act? Well, flat-earthers are putting on an act.

They are just trying to be unique like CT people, and they are uniquely stupid.

 

[Last Samurai]

no wonder the alt right is clueless if they keep reading garbage like this.

honestly, who the hell is gonna feel sorry for a bunch of corrupt wall street bankers. so Weissman put a few of them in jail? Good. that's where they belong.

and Manafort is shady as fuck. he was the campaign manager who had to resign when it became known that he received $17 million from Ukranian oligarchs. his hands are so dirty even the white house has tried to distance themselves by stating Manafort "played a very limited role" in the campaign. but somehow he's the victim here??

lol, right...

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

An article written with the facts would be nice but since they're not privy to the facts of the Mueller case, it can't have them.

 

[TheTimeIsNotNow]

Poor Enron, they dindu nuffin

 

[TheComebackKid]

Good lord.

FYI, never believe a word Kong says. He tends to just makes things up.

 

[thechoice2]

I like how this article takes the bold position that the prosecutor in question was too hard on Enron execs and the bankers they were conniving with, and how he's totally responsible for the collapse of the accounting firm that was cooking Enron's books. And now he's going to bully poor little Manafort who surely never did anything wrong. Not familiar with Weismann, though I gather he spent a decade or so smashing the mob, but that's certainly a perspective.

lol Yeah I stopped reading right here

Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Since I was an accounting major in college I took an interest in the Enron/AA scandal. And I distinctly remember this case being overturned not because of Wiessmann but because the judge gave improper instructions to the jury before deliberating the case. Somehow they're blaming Weissmann for the judge making a mistake. That just tells me how biased this article will be and I'd just be better off skipping it and reading my unbiased Sherbro's opinions!

 

[TheComebackKid]

This is clearly what is happening. Comeys good friend, 'brother in arms', and fellow swamp creature Mueller is carrying out a fishing expedition looking to find whatever he can on Trump and those around him.

 

[44nutman]

Article needs more rife.

 

[klnOmega]

Now that Mueller's deep Russian ties are starting to come out, I think its time for Mueller himself to resign, and for Sesson's to appoint a special council to look into whether Mueller's FBI mishandled the investigations surrounding the Uranium One deal.

 

[panamaican]

Just a point about your comment about prosecutors being fined, having their license suspended, or being indicted.
All of those punishments are extremely rare. Prosecutors routinely violate defendants rights, including not disclosing exculpatory evidence, introducing testimony they know, or should know is perjury, and many other gross violations of defendants rights, without suffering any personal consequences. Usually the worst thing that happens ( to the prosecutor), is the defendant gets a new trial. Which means the accused gets to go through everything again, usually with far less resources at their disposal.
I know that sometimes prosecutors face consequences for misconduct, but most often they do not. My point is, is that the fact that Weissmann having not been held accountable for anything, doesn't mean he is an ethical prosecutor.
This is not an attempt to defend Trump, for those of you waiting to argue about him, or collusion, or whatever. My point has to do with the day to day misconduct that happens all across this country by County, State, and Federal Prosecutors.

Yes but if this is the only investigation which the op-ed is drawing attention to then I would assume that it is significant enough of a breach to warrant additional action.

Otherwise, point us to a laundry list of poor behavior.

One or the other: Quantity - more than one investigation warranting scrutiny; or Quality - this one investigation was exceptionally bad warranting a rare level of punishment.

Neither quantity nor quality suggests that this prosecutor isn't some particularly bad egg and means that the op-ed is just about general character assassination with the goal of undermining whatever future conclusions are released, not about highlighting someone whose conduct over the years is abnormal. It's a normal tactic and thus worth ignoring.

 

[Ling Ling]

Yes but if this is the only investigation which the op-ed is drawing attention to then I would assume that it is significant enough of a breach to warrant additional action.

Otherwise, point us to a laundry list of poor behavior.

One or the other: Quantity - more than one investigation warranting scrutiny; or Quality - this one investigation was exceptionally bad warranting a rare level of punishment.

Neither quantity nor quality suggests that this prosecutor isn't some particularly bad egg and means that the op-ed is just about general character assassination with the goal of undermining whatever future conclusions are released, not about highlighting someone whose conduct over the years is abnormal. It's a normal tactic and thus worth ignoring.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion but I will again assert that most Federal prosecutors abuse their authority on a regular basis. So Weissmann may not rise to the level of abnormality that you require but he's certainly not held in very high regard by attorneys who have litigated against him. Since most people will make decisions by reading the headline it's difficult to get people to do the research necessary to actually have some sense of the magnitude involved.
People will actually say " I don't care what he did to Arthur Anderson they were corrupt blah blah " because they only read the headline. However the Supreme Court overturned the entire case unanimously 9-0 because the conduct wasn't criminal. 85,000 people lost their jobs. Is that abnormal ?
If you are actually interested check this out. Fair warning it's a long read but full of detail. Decide for yourself if you think there is anything troubling about this mans actions.
http://www.federalappeals.com/wp-co...nt_for_egregious_prosecutorial_misconduct.pdf


http://seeking-justice.org/andrew-weissmann-quietly-slipped-from-fbi-to-nyu/
The NY Bar swept an ethical grievance aside–actually punting it to the Department of Justice to decide–even though the Department was defending Weissmann on those charges.

Prosecutorial misconduct infected every case with which he was involved while on the Enron Task Force. First, he and DOJ Criminal Division Nominee Leslie Caldwell annihilated Arthur Andersen, destroying 85,000 jobs, only to be reversed by the Supreme Court 9-0 because Andersen’s conduct wasn’t criminal. Then Weissmann oversaw the Merrill Lynch prosecution where his Task Force cronies including now White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler “plainly suppressed” evidence that was favorable to the defense while four innocent men went to prison. Weissmann resigned from the Task Force amid serious allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by the Enron Broadband trial prosecutors.

Now he’s teaching law students? ? ? At least we can all be grateful that he is not directing the investigations, evidentiary decisions,email collection, and prosecution plans for the FBI any longer–or helping collect and handle NSA’s massive data on each of us.




Weissmann was the director of the Enron Task Force
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...nron-task-force-2009-10?op=1/#ron-broadband-3

Tom Kirkendall: The first blunder of the Task Force during the trial occurred when prosecutors elicited false testimony from the government's key witness, former Enron Broadband co-CEO Ken Rice. Then, after Rice's testimony was impeached dramatically during cross-examination, the prosecution compounded its error by calling a witness (Beth Stier) who testified that, based on discussions with the Task Force prosecutors before her testimony, she felt threatened by the Task Force prosecutors. Later in the trial, another witness -- Lawrence Ciscon -- testified that he was threatened shortly before his testimony by prosecutors with a possible indictment if he proceeded to testify on behalf of the Broadband defendants. To make matters worse, toward the close of the trial, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore sharply rebuked an Enron Task Force prosecutor for asking a question on cross-examination of Broadband defendant Kevin Howard that at least violated the judge's prior instructions to the Task Force prosecutors. Finally, earlier this week, Task Force director Andrew Weissman took the unusual step of resigning as head of the Task Force while the Broadband jury was still deliberating amidst rumblings of prosecutorial misconduct within the Task Force.

In that regard, the Fifth Circuit decision invited Skilling to file a motion for new trial based on issues of prosecutorial misconduct that Skilling raised in the appeal after discovering the evidence post-trial. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit was particularly concerned about the failure of the Enron Task Force to comply with federal rules requiring the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense from the Task Force's pre-trial interviews with main Skilling accuser, former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.

Fastow testified at trial that he told Skilling about the Global Galactic agreement, which purportedly documented a series of illegal "side deals" between Fastow and former Enron chief accountant Richard Causey that guaranteed Fastow would not lose money on certain special purpose entities that he was managing. Skilling denied any knowledge of the purported agreement.

After Skilling's conviction, the Skilling defense team discovered Fastow interview notes that the Enron Task Force had failed to disclose to the Skilling team prior to trial. Among other things, those notes revealed that Fastow had told the Task Force lawyers that he didn't think he had told Skilling about the Global Galactic agreement. The Fifth Circuit characterized the Task Force's non-disclosure as "troubling" in inviting Skilling to file a motion for new trial with the District Court.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...nigerian-barge-1#andy-fastow-non-disclosure-8



Prosecutorial misconduct in its worst forms is difficult to uncover. It can be as egregious as obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury. The defense doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. Judges want and expect to be able to trust the prosecutors, and judges have their own limitations and biases. Too few are willing to face how pernicious and pervasive this problem is. A prosecutor willing to lie or hide evidence to achieve a result has the ability to do so — with no ramifications. Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity, and bar associations do little to nothing in most cases.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414181/time-tame-prosecutors-gone-wild-sidney-powell

 

[trident]

Because War Room's most vocal, salty and enthusiastic thread spammers are Red Pilling student-age kids still living on their parents' support system and buying into any popular cultural trends that dump on 'sensitivity' or 'multiculturalism' or 'inclusiveness' because that's not edgy or cool like Batman skirting due process to whoop some ass or Jack Bauer shooting guys in the kneecaps

The majority of War Room posters (and people posting in threads and social media across the internet) don't live in countries under strict regimes, absolute religious authority or daily human rights abuses via their own governments because they can afford an internet connection and a computing device and they aren't constantly grinding to support their families. Large swaths of the world's agrarian population too impoverished to vocalize online, subjected to the strictest regimes don't spend their time complaining about Oliver Stone tweeting something

It's a luxury brand hobby to sit online urging the silencing of charity, victimization or meme-trashing advocating for rights and protections

That's why you see all this anti-everything cynicism daily surge in War Room, because bored college kids are surrounded by communal, nurturing environments and want to lash out against "dad"

Great post

 

[panamaican]

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion but I will again assert that most Federal prosecutors abuse their authority on a regular basis. So Weissmann may not rise to the level of abnormality that you require but he's certainly not held in very high regard by attorneys who have litigated against him. Since most people will make decisions by reading the headline it's difficult to get people to do the research necessary to actually have some sense of the magnitude involved.
People will actually say " I don't care what he did to Arthur Anderson they were corrupt blah blah " because they only read the headline. However the Supreme Court overturned the entire case unanimously 9-0 because the conduct wasn't criminal. 85,000 people lost their jobs. Is that abnormal ?
If you are actually interested check this out. Fair warning it's a long read but full of detail. Decide for yourself if you think there is anything troubling about this mans actions.
http://www.federalappeals.com/wp-co...nt_for_egregious_prosecutorial_misconduct.pdf


http://seeking-justice.org/andrew-weissmann-quietly-slipped-from-fbi-to-nyu/
The NY Bar swept an ethical grievance aside–actually punting it to the Department of Justice to decide–even though the Department was defending Weissmann on those charges.

Prosecutorial misconduct infected every case with which he was involved while on the Enron Task Force. First, he and DOJ Criminal Division Nominee Leslie Caldwell annihilated Arthur Andersen, destroying 85,000 jobs, only to be reversed by the Supreme Court 9-0 because Andersen’s conduct wasn’t criminal. Then Weissmann oversaw the Merrill Lynch prosecution where his Task Force cronies including now White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler “plainly suppressed” evidence that was favorable to the defense while four innocent men went to prison. Weissmann resigned from the Task Force amid serious allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by the Enron Broadband trial prosecutors.

Now he’s teaching law students? ? ? At least we can all be grateful that he is not directing the investigations, evidentiary decisions,email collection, and prosecution plans for the FBI any longer–or helping collect and handle NSA’s massive data on each of us.




Weissmann was the director of the Enron Task Force
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...nron-task-force-2009-10?op=1/#ron-broadband-3

Tom Kirkendall: The first blunder of the Task Force during the trial occurred when prosecutors elicited false testimony from the government's key witness, former Enron Broadband co-CEO Ken Rice. Then, after Rice's testimony was impeached dramatically during cross-examination, the prosecution compounded its error by calling a witness (Beth Stier) who testified that, based on discussions with the Task Force prosecutors before her testimony, she felt threatened by the Task Force prosecutors. Later in the trial, another witness -- Lawrence Ciscon -- testified that he was threatened shortly before his testimony by prosecutors with a possible indictment if he proceeded to testify on behalf of the Broadband defendants. To make matters worse, toward the close of the trial, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore sharply rebuked an Enron Task Force prosecutor for asking a question on cross-examination of Broadband defendant Kevin Howard that at least violated the judge's prior instructions to the Task Force prosecutors. Finally, earlier this week, Task Force director Andrew Weissman took the unusual step of resigning as head of the Task Force while the Broadband jury was still deliberating amidst rumblings of prosecutorial misconduct within the Task Force.

In that regard, the Fifth Circuit decision invited Skilling to file a motion for new trial based on issues of prosecutorial misconduct that Skilling raised in the appeal after discovering the evidence post-trial. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit was particularly concerned about the failure of the Enron Task Force to comply with federal rules requiring the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense from the Task Force's pre-trial interviews with main Skilling accuser, former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.

Fastow testified at trial that he told Skilling about the Global Galactic agreement, which purportedly documented a series of illegal "side deals" between Fastow and former Enron chief accountant Richard Causey that guaranteed Fastow would not lose money on certain special purpose entities that he was managing. Skilling denied any knowledge of the purported agreement.

After Skilling's conviction, the Skilling defense team discovered Fastow interview notes that the Enron Task Force had failed to disclose to the Skilling team prior to trial. Among other things, those notes revealed that Fastow had told the Task Force lawyers that he didn't think he had told Skilling about the Global Galactic agreement. The Fifth Circuit characterized the Task Force's non-disclosure as "troubling" in inviting Skilling to file a motion for new trial with the District Court.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...nigerian-barge-1#andy-fastow-non-disclosure-8



Prosecutorial misconduct in its worst forms is difficult to uncover. It can be as egregious as obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury. The defense doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. Judges want and expect to be able to trust the prosecutors, and judges have their own limitations and biases. Too few are willing to face how pernicious and pervasive this problem is. A prosecutor willing to lie or hide evidence to achieve a result has the ability to do so — with no ramifications. Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity, and bar associations do little to nothing in most cases.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414181/time-tame-prosecutors-gone-wild-sidney-powell

I feel like you didn't actually read what I wrote. I'm not questioning if there was misconduct on this Enron Task Force, I'm taking it at face value. You don't need to convince me because I'm not arguing that point.

My point is that if the Enron Task Force is only example from his entire career then it's not abnormal relative to the general level of prosecutor aggressiveness that often results in things being overturned. Unfortunate as it is, prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence to favor their cases and when they get caught the rulings get overturned. This isn't unusual just because this case was high profile. 18% of such cases result in the case being overturned. That's a pretty large rate.

And if this task force issue was excessively bad, relative to other examples of misconduct, then there would be some sort of disciplinary action taken against him. Having his actions overturned in the courts is standard, not unusual. Additional discipline would speak to the severity of his misconduct.

So, when you're looking at an attorney who prosecuted cases for literally decades to imply that he is someone who cannot be relied upon as a prosecutor requires more than just the Enron Task Force issue - which I'm agreeing with as an example of misconduct.

It's like saying that because a doctor lost 1 patient in surgery, they're no longer qualified to perform any surgery at all.

 

[Ling Ling]

lol Yeah I stopped reading right here Since I was an accounting major in college I took an interest in the Enron/AA scandal. And I distinctly remember this case being overturned not because of Wiessmann but because the judge gave improper instructions to the jury before deliberating the case. Somehow they're blaming Weissmann for the judge making a mistake. That just tells me how biased this article will be and I'd just be better off skipping it and reading my unbiased Sherbro's opinions!

Three years later, the Supreme Court reversed the Andersen conviction in a unanimous decision, holding that Andersen’s conduct was not criminal, and it “was shocking how little criminal culpability the jury instructions required.” Those jury instructions had been drafted by the Task Force, then rubber-stamped and read to the jury a “law and order” Houston federal judge. The judge was compelled to allow Mr. Duncan to withdraw his guilty plea. Weissmann and Caldwell had coerced him into pleading guilty to something that was not a crime.
Source https://bigleaguepolitics.com/reaching-prosecutors-run-country/

 

[Ling Ling]

I feel like you didn't actually read what I wrote. I'm not questioning if there was misconduct on this Enron Task Force, I'm taking it at face value. You don't need to convince me because I'm not arguing that point.

My point is that if the Enron Task Force is only example from his entire career then it's not abnormal relative to the general level of prosecutor aggressiveness that often results in things being overturned. Unfortunate as it is, prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence to favor their cases and when they get caught the rulings get overturned. This isn't unusual just because this case was high profile. 18% of such cases result in the case being overturned. That's a pretty large rate.

And if this task force issue was excessively bad, relative to other examples of misconduct, then there would be some sort of disciplinary action taken against him. Having his actions overturned in the courts is standard, not unusual. Additional discipline would speak to the severity of his misconduct.

So, when you're looking at an attorney who prosecuted cases for literally decades to imply that he is someone who cannot be relied upon as a prosecutor requires more than just the Enron Task Force issue - which I'm agreeing with as an example of misconduct.

It's like saying that because a doctor lost 1 patient in surgery, they're no longer qualified to perform any surgery at all.

I don't have the time right now to do an exhaustive search of Weissmann's entire career but would like to point out a few things.
1. Your assertion that " Additional discipline would speak to the severity of his misconduct." I would opine that it is incredibly rare for prosecutors in general to be held accountable for intentional misconduct and even more rare for Federal prosecutors working for the Justice Department. In the Enron task force case Weismanns misconduct was investigated by the Justice Department, who was also defending him from said misconduct, because the NY State bar declined to take it up. It's a clear conflict of interest.
Source : http://seeking-justice.org/doj-defe...against-serious-ethics-charges-pending-in-ny/
Please read the link above.

2. Your statement " It's like saying that because a doctor lost 1 patient in surgery, they're no longer qualified to perform any surgery at all"
is specious at best. A better analogy would be a doctor lost a patient in surgery because he took deliberate actions designed to cause the patient to die. In that scenario, he would likely be considered no longer qualified to perform surgery.
Weissmann didn't make a mistake like the hypothetical doctor scenario you describe. He deliberately withheld evidence of innocence and evidence favorable to defendents while seeking to deprive them of their freedom and destroy companies which consequently cost tens of thousands of people their livelihoods. How many times should someone be allowed to do this before they are considered unethical ?
You're correct in your assertion that these types of scenarios are common enough that Weissmann doesn't stick out from the crowd, but that is a pretty low bar being set in my opinion.

 

[panamaican]

I don't have the time right now to do an exhaustive search of Weissmann's entire career but would like to point out a few things.
1. Your assertion that " Additional discipline would speak to the severity of his misconduct." I would opine that it is incredibly rare for prosecutors in general to be held accountable for intentional misconduct and even more rare for Federal prosecutors working for the Justice Department. In the Enron task force case Weismanns misconduct was investigated by the Justice Department, who was also defending him from said misconduct, because the NY State bar declined to take it up. It's a clear conflict of interest.
Source : http://seeking-justice.org/doj-defe...against-serious-ethics-charges-pending-in-ny/
Please read the link above.

2. Your statement " It's like saying that because a doctor lost 1 patient in surgery, they're no longer qualified to perform any surgery at all"
is specious at best. A better analogy would be a doctor lost a patient in surgery because he took deliberate actions designed to cause the patient to die. In that scenario, he would likely be considered no longer qualified to perform surgery.
Weissmann didn't make a mistake like the hypothetical doctor scenario you describe. He deliberately withheld evidence of innocence and evidence favorable to defendents while seeking to deprive them of their freedom and destroy companies which consequently cost tens of thousands of people their livelihoods. How many times should someone be allowed to do this before they are considered unethical ?
You're correct in your assertion that these types of scenarios are common enough that Weissmann doesn't stick out from the crowd, but that is a pretty low bar being set in my opinion.

Yes, it's exceedingly rare for them to be disciplined for misconduct. Which changes nothing about what I said. I said that if the level of misconduct was especially noteworthy we would see something rare done in response. The overturning of the cases doesn't speak to the severity of the misconduct, almost any material misconduct will result in overturning the cases because our justice system is designed to do so. Which is a good thing but given that material misconduct covers a lot of errors both intentional and accidental, you'd have to look for more to assign some kind of larger judgment on the prosecutor as a whole.

And my statement is accurate. Yours assumes states the doctors choice was intentionally designed to cause death, the actual better parallel is that the doctor took a course of action that was risky but he determined that the risk was worth it and it failed.

 

[Ling Ling]

Yes, it's exceedingly rare for them to be disciplined for misconduct. Which changes nothing about what I said. I said that if the level of misconduct was especially noteworthy we would see something rare done in response. The overturning of the cases doesn't speak to the severity of the misconduct, almost any material misconduct will result in overturning the cases because our justice system is designed to do so. Which is a good thing but given that material misconduct covers a lot of errors both intentional and accidental, you'd have to look for more to assign some kind of larger judgment on the prosecutor as a whole.

And my statement is accurate. Yours assumes states the doctors choice was intentionally designed to cause death, the actual better parallel is that the doctor took a course of action that was risky but he determined that the risk was worth it and it failed.

Did you read about the misconduct in these cases ? It was intentional, it was designed to deprive the defendents of a fair trial, it was intentionally concealed while the defendents were in prison, and was disclosed accidentally during the appeals process. I guess that's not enough to assign some kind of larger judgement in your estimation.
With regard to your doctors example, for any comparison to be truly analogous, it would have to have parallels to the prosecutors conduct. Namely the doctor would have to take actions that were intentionally incorrect and prohibited, and that were designed to deprive the patient of a chance at having a successful surgery, he would have to engage in a cover up of his conduct, and accidentally reveal the truth at a later stage of an investigation. That's substantially different than taking a risk that was worth it and failing, both legally and ethically.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

PROSECUTOR: Mueller Staff Suggests Not Interested In Justice...

An opinion piece linked via Drudge, rife with facts and valid points. Read at your own risk. Mueller isn't going to jettison Weissmann, but he should. At a minimum...



By Sidney Powell, opinion contributor — 10/19/17 02:50 PM EDT

Much has been written about the prosecutorial prowess of Robert Mueller’s team assembled to investigate allegations of Russia’s involvement in the Trump campaign. Little has been said of the danger of prosecutorial overreach and the true history of Mueller’s lead prosecutor.

What was supposed to have been a search for Russia’s cyberspace intrusions into our electoral politics has morphed into a malevolent mission targeting friends, family and colleagues of the president. The Mueller investigation has become an all-out assault to find crimes to pin on them — and it won’t matter if there are no crimes to be found. This team can make some.

Many Americans despise President Trump and anyone associated with him. Yet turning our system of justice into a political weapon is a danger we must guard against.

Think back to April 1, 1940, and a world awash in turmoil, hate and fear. Revered Attorney General Robert H. Jackson assembled the United States attorneys. In remarks enshrined in the hearts of all good prosecutors, he said, “the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”


Yet Mueller tapped a different sort of prosecutor to lead his investigation — his long-time friend and former counsel, Andrew Weissmann. He is not just a “tough” prosecutor. Time after time, courts have reversed Weissmann’s most touted “victories” for his tactics. This is hardly the stuff of a hero in the law.

Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Next, Weissmann creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron. Four Merrill executives went to prison for as long as a year. Weissmann’s team made sure they did not even get bail pending their appeals, even though the charges Weissmann concocted, like those against Andersen, were literally unprecedented.

Weissmann’s prosecution devastated the lives and families of the Merrill executives, causing enormous defense costs, unimaginable stress and torturous prison time. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the mass of the case.

Weissmann quietly resigned from the Enron Task Force just as the judge in the Enron Broadband prosecution began excoriating Weissmann’s team, and the press began catching on to Weissmann’s modus operandi.

Mueller knows this history. Is this why he tapped Weissmann to target Paul Manafort?

As Attorney General Jackson foretold: “Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”

Manafort, a Trump associate, is simply a small step in Weissmann’s quest to impugn this presidency or to reverse the results of the 2016 election. Never mind that months of investigation by multiple entities have produced no evidence of "collusion." Mueller’s rare, predawn raid of Manafort’s home — a fearsome treat usually reserved for mobsters and drug dealers — is textbook Weissmann terrorism. And of course, the details were leaked — another illegal tactic.

Weissmann is intent on indicting Manafort. It won’t matter that Manafort knows the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians. Weissman will pressure Manafort to say whatever satisfies Weissmann’s perspective. Perjury is only that which differs from Weissmann’s “view” of the “evidence” — not the actual truth.

We all lose from Weissmann’s involvement. First, the truth plays no role in Weissmann’s quest. Second, respect for the rule of law, simple decency and following the facts do not appear in Weissmann’s playbook. Third, and most important, all Americans lose whenever our judicial system becomes a weapon to reward political friends and punish political foes.

It is long past the due date for Mueller to clean up his team — or Weissmann to resign — as a sign that the United States is a nation of laws that are far more important than one Weissmann.

Sidney Powell (@SidneyPowell1) was a federal prosecutor in three districts under nine U.S. attorneys from both political parties, then in private practice for more than 20 years. She is a past president of the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit and of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. A veteran of 500 federal appeals, she published "Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice."

I'll she'd no tears for Enon or Meril; and screw Anderson too. The prosecution charges, a court found them guilty so no it wast the prosecutor that was overturned.

And Lulz at trying to get sympathy for Manofort.

 

[panamaican]

Did you read about the misconduct in these cases ? It was intentional, it was designed to deprive the defendents of a fair trial, it was intentionally concealed while the defendents were in prison, and was disclosed accidentally during the appeals process. I guess that's not enough to assign some kind of larger judgement in your estimation.
With regard to your doctors example, for any comparison to be truly analogous, it would have to have parallels to the prosecutors conduct. Namely the doctor would have to take actions that were intentionally incorrect and prohibited, and that were designed to deprive the patient of a chance at having a successful surgery, he would have to engage in a cover up of his conduct, and accidentally reveal the truth at a later stage of an investigation. That's substantially different than taking a risk that was worth it and failing, both legally and ethically.

Yes, I read all of it. The entire point of prosecutorial misconduct is the allegation that the prosecutor's conduct denied the defendant's a fair trial. That's why the cases are overturned. There is no other type of prosecutorial misconduct.

Actually, my analogy is still the most accurate because prosecutors have broad discretion in how they conduct their cases.

The issue is whether or not the chosen action within that discretion crossed an ethical line as determined by the court. Whether or not the prosecutor was intentionally trying to cross the ethical line or not is irrelevant. If the court finds that the line was crossed, intentionally or unintentionally, then you have to overturn the case. Note there are 2 different intents here. The prosecutor always intentionally chooses the course of action that led to the misconduct allegation, they don't always intend that course of action to be an ethical breach. They make the choice but might believe that they are still in the safe zone of prosecutorial discretion. When they're wrong, the case gets overturned or the charges get dismissed.

In the cases where the intended course of action also included an intent to breach an ethical line (as opposed to overly zealous prosecutors), you might see some action taken against the prosecutor. The Duke Lacrosse case is an example - that prosecutor was disbarred. There are other examples where the misconduct is severe enough to warrant additional penalty - suspension or the like. In other cases, simply overturning the case is sufficient.