Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlmorton | Hacker News Reader

I never understand how people think this works. Do you believe the judicial system in America is a farce and under the control of the executive branch? Or maybe the legislative branch?

Do you think a Senator can call up the judge and demand a lenient sentence?

And why would the judge care?

View on HN

In the recent Painkiller miniseries [1], which is supposed to be about Purdue Pharma, what you describe above is basically how things worked. There's a key scene in which Rudy Giuliani calls in some favor, which results in a prosecutor being significantly influenced by the White House. I don't know if this actually precisely happened, but this portrayal on Netflix speaks to "how people thinks this works" and why.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painkiller_(TV_series)

> Do you believe the judicial system in America is a farce and under the control of the executive branch?

It's pretty well known that if you're Steve Bannon or Scooter Libby or Paul Pogue you can get a pardon.

It's also pretty well known that if you're Brock Turner the judge can let you off with a slap on the wrist because he likes you.

I believe there have also been a number of cases in the US where cops have killed people in custody and gone unpunished for various reasons.

And there have been various controversies about, e.g. firing US attorneys who investigated one party's politicians and firing others for not investigating the other party's politicians.

And of course it's well known that the Supreme Court are political appointees with specific party loyalties.

With all that said it's very unlikely anyone's going to intervene in favour of Bankman-Fried - I'd wager he's too high-profile for an intervention to be swept under the rug, and and not enough of an insider for anyone to intervene anyway and take the heat.

I would not know how that works, but I can recall a "strange" order of judicial events in the Alstom buyout by General Electric. Frédéric Pierucci was incarcerated for some weird foreign bribery charges, refused to be an FBI informant, and was released once Alstom was sold. He wrote a book about it. It really seems he was held as an economic hostage.

So when you learn about that, it's easier to think that the justice branch is much much closer to the executive branch than what it seems.

If I were the French government and Frédéric Pierucci were taken hostage why would I give a flying somethingorother. What leverage did the USA gain from holding this man? Ok, if they had taken Macron's daughter, or a bus full of french school children I might buy it... but a energy company exec?

Indeed (to steal wording from the Wikipedia article) if I had been in charge in France and really thought this was happening I'd have taken some hostages of my own ! They would have been arrested on drugs and sex charges, I'd have had the security services fabricating lots of juicy stuff etc etc etc.

When you imprison someone until they become a spy in the company you're trying to buy, do you really think there is no outcome where you might gain leverage?

Under control like in Russia? No

Under influence - for sure.

Btw, "fun" fact - Theranos CEO was not convicted of defrauding patients or employees. She was only convicted of defrauding investors (many of whom were famous politicians like Kissinger and Shultz)

Fortunately, we’ll get to see the outcome soon enough and determine who is right.

I’ll place my money on conviction and a substantial sentence.

Ok? What are you claiming here?

> Btw, "fun" fact - Theranos CEO was not convicted of defrauding patients or employees. She was only convicted of defrauding investors (many of whom were famous politicians like Kissinger and Shultz)

And Capone was convicted of tax evasion. So what? Holmes got 11.5 years. Does that seem like there was some undue interference on her behalf? Because I would be pretty disappointed if that's the best sentence I could get.

> Theranos CEO was not convicted of defrauding patients or employees.

To be fair, it was a jury that decided that.

I may be wrong, but I think she was not even charged with defrauding patients

I'm interested in understanding the chronology of that investment from Kissinger. He is listed as a board member. I wonder how many people invested after he went on the board? He is now a victim but I wonder how many times he promoted Theranos publicly or privately to increase the value of his investment and with what kind of platform given his name and position.

They where eyeing huge deal from US military

All I know is if I ran official state business (full of classified stuff) through a sever in my basement my biggest problem wouldn't be losing an election.

Although I also wouldn't throw a hissy fit until I got to bring my blackberry into scifs so that's neither here nor there.

influenceable and extremely fallible, while being presented as the opposite

The DOJ is executive.

Justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate.

If a judge is pleasing enough to the president (& senate), they can be appointed to the supreme court.

Certain individuals may be pursued more or less aggressively by the DOJ.

You got your Joe Arpaios who do their thing for years and years and declare that they won't co-operate with investigations, and wind up with a Trump pardon. And Jeffrey Epstein in the 2005-2008 years.

On the other hand you have your Snowdens, Assanges, Kim Dotcoms and Aaron Swartzes that the US will happily pursue indefinitely and across borders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com