Trump's America

[ZRod]

22 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Supreme Court disagrees via 9-0 verdict on your assessment. 
Via CNN Law Center. 
“At issue for the court was whether the wording of jury instructions were improperly vague. Maureen Mahoney, attorney for Andersen, told the justices the government used improper legal definitions that made it impossible for the defendants to get a fair verdict.

The disagreement hinged on whether the term "corruptly persuading," contained in federal criminal statutes, in this case means "having an improper purpose ... to subvert, undermine, or impede" when it relates to obstruction of justice and witness tampering. The various legal standards of "criminal intent" were at the heart of Andersen's appeal.

In the ruling, Rehnquist noted prosecutors should have been more careful in its pursuit of Andersen. 

"Such restraint is particularly appropriate here, where the act underlying the conviction -- 'persuasion' -- is by itself innocuous. Indeed, 'persuading' a person 'to withhold' testimony from a government proceeding, or government official is not inherently malign," Rehnquist wrote.”

 

Dude, I literally just quoted and linked you Rehnquist's opinion... 

 

The SC didn't rule on the charges brought. They ruled on whether or not the instructions provided to the jury were proper. Much of what is quote in Rehnquist's opinion would very easily lead one to believe that had the instructions been correct the Supreme Court would have upheld a guilty verdict. He essentially wrote how AA corruptly destroyed documents and then laid out an argument for how to get a conviction, then said it wasn't pertinent to the case currently before them.

Quote

And limiting criminality to persuaders conscious of their wrongdoing sensibly allows §1512(b) to reach only those with the level of “culpability … we usually require in order to impose criminal liability.” United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S., at 602; see also Liparota v. United States, supra, at 426.

 

The outer limits of this element need not be explored here because the jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing.

 

 

 

 

So does what AA did seem above board to you?

[Archy1221]

35 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Dude, I literally just quoted and linked you Rehnquist's opinion... 

 

The SC didn't rule on the charges brought. They ruled on whether or not the instructions provided to the jury were proper. Much of what is quote in Rehnquist's opinion would very easily lead one to believe that had the instructions been correct the Supreme Court would have upheld a guilty verdict. He essentially wrote how AA corruptly destroyed documents and then laid out an argument for how to get a conviction, then said it wasn't pertinent to the case currently before them.

 

 

 

 

So does what AA did seem above board to you?

Bolded we agree.  Italics we disagree 

 

Above board isn’t the question.  Criminality is the question.  I’m sure both of us could think of many companies actions we would consider not above board, but not criminal either 

[ZRod]

19 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Bolded we agree.  Italics we disagree 

 

Above board isn’t the question.  Criminality is the question.  I’m sure both of us could think of many companies actions we would consider not above board, but not criminal either 

Answer the question. Was it above board?

[Archy1221]

16 hours ago, ZRod said:

Answer the question. Was it above board?

What are you a prosecutor, LOL.   Here’s you answer.  Do with it what you will.  

 

I don’t know as I don’t work in the accounting business.  Sounds shady to me but also sounds like it’s common practice judging by other Big4 firms shredding documents and AA saying it fit within their guidelines.  
 

Ended up not being criminal, I know that.  Weissmann is a piece is s#!t, I know that too.  

[knapplc]

And this is a great example of why the Dems need to pack the Supreme Court. This is absurd - a crime is a crime whether the criminal is in office or not. 

 

Quote

 

Supreme Court ends Trump emoluments lawsuits

 

The Supreme Court on Monday brought an end to lawsuits over whether Donald Trump illegally profited off his presidency.

 

The justices threw out Trump’s challenge to lower court rulings that had allowed lawsuits to go forward alleging that he violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by accepting payments from foreign and domestic officials who stay at the Trump International Hotel.

 

The high court also ordered the lower court rulings thrown out as well and directed appeals courts in New York and Richmond, Virginia, to dismiss the suits as moot now that Trump is no longer in office.

 

 

This is an absolutely asinine ruling. The Supremes are going to (rightfully) be raked for this. 

[Archy1221]

Justice served by the High Court

[ZRod]

38 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

What are you a prosecutor, LOL.   Here’s you answer.  Do with it what you will.  

 

I don’t know as I don’t work in the accounting business.  Sounds shady to me but also sounds like it’s common practice judging by other Big4 firms shredding documents and AA saying it fit within their guidelines.  
 

Ended up not being criminal, I know that.  Weissmann is a piece is s#!t, I know that too.  

Do you think that the managers who directed the shredding knew that destroying those documents would impede any investigation into Enron that the SEC may conduct?

 

[Archy1221]

32 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Do you think that the managers who directed the shredding knew that destroying those documents would impede any investigation into Enron that the SEC may conduct?

 

Do you think Andrew Weismann is a shady individual?

[ZRod]

8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Do you think Andrew Weismann is a shady individual?

Let's finish this discussion first.

 

Do you think those managers knew that document distruction would hinder an investigation?

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Let's finish this discussion first.

 

Do you think those managers knew that document distruction would hinder an investigation?

I’ve answered many of your questions already, and you have never commented on AW. 

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, ZRod said:

Let's finish this discussion first.

 

Do you think those managers knew that document distruction would hinder an investigation?

My guess is that they were more worried about the documents showing their ineptitude at catching the fraud and potentially cause lost business vs helping to cover up a crime.  

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

My guess is that they were more worried about the documents showing their ineptitude at catching the fraud and potentially cause lost business vs helping to cover up a crime.  

Ineptitude that would have been discovered during an SEC investigation. Which they knew was eminent, because they were notified of it by their client prior to sending emails about their "retention policy". Which seem like more than coincidence that they began sending multiple emails in the 2 weeks after being notified to destroy documents per their "retention policy" (I maybe get one every couple months and I work for a corporation larger than AA was). You would of had to found them guilty if that is truly what you believe.

 

Your original act doesn't have to be criminal to be charged with obstruction if you knowingly try to hide something from investigators. Your positing that those documents were knowingly destroyed so that SEC investigators would not find them. That is obstruction of justice; in this case witness tampering by preventing employees from being able to turn over documents to a pending investigation by having them destroyed.

 

 

I think Weissman is a very intelligent lawyer. In this case I think it was a poor mistake to subvert the text of the criminal code with the jury instructions. The case should have stood on it's own merits.

[Archy1221]

14 minutes ago, ZRod said:

 

I think Weissman is a very intelligent lawyer. In this case I think it was a poor mistake to subvert the text of the criminal code with the jury instructions. The case should have stood on it's own merits.

We shall disagree about this part.  I don’t foresee us finding common ground with respect to his morals and ethics.  He very well may be smart though

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

We shall disagree about this part.  I don’t foresee us finding common ground with respect to his morals and ethics.  He very well may be smart though

Telling enough. We know where you stand.

[Mike Mcdee]

On 1/25/2021 at 9:06 AM, knapplc said:

And this is a great example of why the Dems need to pack the Supreme Court. This is absurd - a crime is a crime whether the criminal is in office or not. 

 

 

This is an absolutely asinine ruling. The Supremes are going to (rightfully) be raked for this. 

I think in this case the relief they were seeking was to stop violations of the emoluments clause. Since he is no longer in office, the relief they are seeking is moot. At least that is what I understand from the ruling.