Agreed to pay vs. actual pay. Might seem like splitting hairs, but kinda important if someone’s freedom is on the line. You can see why the jurors are being careful.
All in all, kinda seems like a sloppy prosecution.
This whole thing is sloppy. Emil may not have been the worlds finest legislator, but it sure feels like he paid a non-cooperation tax to what at the time felt like a US Attorneys Office that thought very highly of their own superiority.
Jones’ behavior was certainly unethical and probably illegal. But it seems like it’s been a pretty messy prosecution by the Feds. Good to see the jurors are being extra careful.
Not sure if Defense counsel asserted the entrapment defense, but it sure seems like it was there, i.e.
when govt. agent induces Defendant to commit a crime he/she would not have otherwise committed.
Jurors have again proven their worth as responsive to the law and to the evidence.
My problem with this case is the continuing practice of Federal prosecutors, (and some supportive judges), stretching beyond all recognition what should be straightforward definitions of wire fraud, conspiracy, and bribery, especially when they can get political notches on their belts.
It’s been going on since Rudy Giuliani made a political career out of it. Great example to follow.
- FF - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 9:22 am:
Agreed to pay vs. actual pay. Might seem like splitting hairs, but kinda important if someone’s freedom is on the line. You can see why the jurors are being careful.
All in all, kinda seems like a sloppy prosecution.
- chi - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 9:32 am:
It’s a very good question, regardless of the underlying facts of the case. Feds should be held to a very high standard in their allegations.
- Eire17 - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 9:40 am:
I think he’s acquitted. Gut feeling.
- Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 9:53 am:
The three questions indicate that they see his acts as illegal—it’s just a question of clarifying the nuances of how federal law applies.
- DHB - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 10:10 am:
This whole thing is sloppy. Emil may not have been the worlds finest legislator, but it sure feels like he paid a non-cooperation tax to what at the time felt like a US Attorneys Office that thought very highly of their own superiority.
- Telly - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 10:14 am:
Jones’ behavior was certainly unethical and probably illegal. But it seems like it’s been a pretty messy prosecution by the Feds. Good to see the jurors are being extra careful.
- Samantha - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 12:49 pm:
Sounds like there’s at least one holdout.
- Downstate - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 2:17 pm:
I’m no fan of corruption, but this seemed like too eager of a set-up.
- Watchdog - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 2:52 pm:
Not sure if Defense counsel asserted the entrapment defense, but it sure seems like it was there, i.e.
when govt. agent induces Defendant to commit a crime he/she would not have otherwise committed.
- walker - Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 5:18 pm:
Jurors have again proven their worth as responsive to the law and to the evidence.
My problem with this case is the continuing practice of Federal prosecutors, (and some supportive judges), stretching beyond all recognition what should be straightforward definitions of wire fraud, conspiracy, and bribery, especially when they can get political notches on their belts.
It’s been going on since Rudy Giuliani made a political career out of it. Great example to follow.