Upon further review of his writings and opinions, I have changed my mind completely about Calabresi. He is, and steadfastly committed to remaining, a political hack. He’s a very intelligent hack, but his viewpoints and his arguments clearly show his legal opinions are simply the byproduct of his political views, and no one should ever take his opinion as worth more than say a Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson.
You were right, @Measure_for_Measure, and I was wrong. It is perfectly acceptable to reject anything Calabresi says as the ramblings of a politician and not as a legal analyst.
Sorry, but Federalist Society? No, just no. You can read/listen to what they have to say, but always give their words the weight of a sheet of parchment in a gale.
Prosecutors said they were not aware of any plea deal discussions. Defense called the judge a hack and accused him of political bias for even asking the question and taking the word of the New York Times as gospel in his unfair ruling.
That did not go over well.
The judge answered back that if he found out later that there was indeed a guilty plea deal being discussed that the defense would NOT like the consequences.
My thought was they are referencing the potential new plea deal mentioned by @mjmartin regarding Allen Weisselberg and if either party was aware of it beyond the rumor mentioned by @MulderMuffin
MJMartin’s post has a link to a CNBC article about the rumor/report:
A quote of the post one is responding too or link to the article (both of which you provided) is always helpful. Particularly when the post is 50 posts back and from 1 week ago.
My fault for not keeping up better I suppose but hitting the “Reply” button makes it much more clear.
Yes, in reference to the judge asking the lawyers involved if there was any truth to the reporting in the New York Times about the perjury plea deal.
My apologies. I was responding to the post just above mine and did not quote the question asked, which would have gone a long way towards making my answer a bit clearer.
“You and your co-counsel have been questioning my impartiality since the early days of this case, presumably because I sometimes rule against your clients. That whole approach is getting old,” the judge wrote.
“I am not reopening the case, but if someone pleads guilty to committing perjury in a case over which I am presiding, I want to know about it,” the judge wrote.
Absolutely correct. The different terms for the civil trials trip me up sometimes because my mind hears “trial” and defaults to prosecution and defense, guilty and not guilty instead of plaintiff and respondent, liable or not liable.
(Though wouldn’t a plea deal for perjury indeed be a guilty plea?)
Yes, but it wouldn’t necessarily be known in advance by the lawyers for the AGNY in the civil trial, since the criminal matter would be handled by the NY DA.
It’s always good for clarity’s sake to actually quote the text you’re referencing, but not 100% necessary. When replying to the post just above, hit the “reply” button at the lower right of the post you’re replying to. That will create a link to that post, so people can go back. Even if you’re replying to a post from days, weeks, months ago, the “reply” button will create the link.
