LolWhatInsurrectionHat Profile picture
Sep 14, 2018 10 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
LAWSPLAINER. Okay. Let me try to do a less half-assed job of thoughts on Manafort's plea agreement. Meanwhile, consider this treatment by friend and classmate @MitchellEpner, as to whom #ff.


/2 BIG POINT NUMBER ONE: In this DC agreement, Manafort pleads to two charges with a maximum 10 year penalty. He agrees to facts that support the government's Sentencing Guideline calculation, which starts at 210 months, much higher.
/3 What does that MEAN? Well, the Guidelines are only suggestions, but it means that even with respect to the DC conviction only, Manafort has a lot of cooperatin' to do before he starts making a difference on that sentence -- it's likely to max out at 10 years.
/4 BIG POINT TWO that I screwed up before: Manafort will still be sentenced on the VA conviction. He's admitted to the remaining VA counts -- the ones the jury hung on -- though he hasn't formally pled to them in VA, and it's not clear if he will.
/5 BUT: the government agrees to recommend that the DC and VA sentences will run concurrently to the extent they're based on the same facts. "Concurrent" means the sentences would run at the same time, so if he got two 10-year sentences he'd do only ten years, IF the judge agrees
/6 What does he face in VA? Well, it's a much higher ceiling, since he was convicted of a bunch of charges there. But one inference from these docs is that the guideline range there will be similar -- a 210 to 262 months recommendation.
/7 That means he could wind up with like 20 years from VA and 10 from DC, running at the same time. Hypothetically.

The way to get that number down is (a) cooperate so the government asks for it to go down, and/or (b) convince the judge to go lower than the guidelines.
/8 Manafort's pushing 70. If he wants to get out alive (remember that in general with good time you serve 85% of your federal sentence), he's gotta either convince the judges to be hella merciful or else cooperate up a storm.
/9 There aren't really any "tells" in the plea agreement or facts that point to where Manafort's cooperation will go, unlike Cohen's agreement, which pointed at the campaign and American Media. So who knows what he really has?
/10 Anyway, this represents an absolutely CRUSHING outcome for Manafort -- who, remember, is still in custody -- made palatable only by the utterly horrific array of alternatives available to him. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with LolWhatInsurrectionHat

LolWhatInsurrectionHat Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Popehat

Oct 4, 2018
Let us return, reluctantly, to Mitchell Langbert, the imbecile Brooklyn College prof whose First Amendment rights I talked about yesterday.

He wants to talk about satire.


/2 See, he penned a screed about the manliness of Kavanaugh and the sissyness of Democrats. It turned some heads.
/3 Then, in the face of turbulence, he retconned it, adding to the post asserting that it was satire in the style of Jonathan Swift, and condemning students for being ignorant of Swift and Horace and such satirical luminaries.

I'm inclined to think he's full of shit.
Read 7 tweets
Oct 3, 2018
An imbecile named Mitchell Langbert, employed (possibly as a prank) by Brooklyn College, wrote a strivingly douchey blog post. Can he be fired, as many urge? A mini-lawsplainer. /1…
/2 Langbert, as is currently fashionable in some circles, wrote a belabored "oh come one everyone did that" post about Kavanaugh's alleged youthful behavior. It's what you'd expect from an average-literate Redditor. People are, understandably, repulsed.
/3 So. In analyzing whether the school may (never mind the philosophical question of SHOULD) fire him, we need to look at two things.

The first thing is any contract -- union or individual -- he has with the school. Many such things place restrictions on termination.
Read 12 tweets
Oct 3, 2018
OK, Graham is a toad, but this is a (smug) reference to Democratic attacks on Clinton accusers in 1998 (Carville used that line to denigrate Paula Jones), and it's more than a little dishonest to clickbait it as if it's not.

/2 I mean, Graham still comes off looking awful, because he IS awful, and his defense of Trump's dickbaggery is feeble. But let's not be dishonest (or historically illiterate, not sure which).
/3 And, by the way, don't miss the absolutely fantastic Season Two of Slow Burn covering the Clinton impeachment, including unsparing looks at how badly some of his accusers were treated. I thought it was impossible to loathe Bill Maher more, but I was wrong!
Read 4 tweets
Oct 2, 2018
A reminder from last month: evasive and non-responsive answers, even if misleading, aren't perjury. It's hard to prove perjury. [That's not to say that such evasion or dishonesty is right, or that it ought not be taken into account in evaluating someone.]
/2 Example: even if you accept the premise that Kavanaugh knew damn well he was the character in Mark Judge's book, this exchange is likely evasive and non-responsive rather than perjury.

(I think he knew, and it's dishonest, but not legally perjury.)

Read 4 tweets
Sep 26, 2018
Sometimes people talk as if witness credibility is objective/universal/definite/constant -- as if you can show factor X, then it's clear/certain/confident the witness is lying or telling the truth.

It's not. It's subjective, cultural, indefinite, and changing. /1
The law recognizes this. Much of the law of evidence is designed to limit irrational but sincere responses to witnesses.

Take Federal Rule of Evidence 610, which many states copy.…

/3 FRE 610 says "Evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility." In other words, you can't cross-examine someone saying "isn't it true you're a Jew," then argue they shouldn't be trusted because of it.
Read 10 tweets
Sep 24, 2018
Today I celebrate a life: that of my grandmother, Annette Doyle, who passed today at just under 101. A life well-lived and an example to me. Here’s her favorite family picture. The photographer made a rude noise that alarmed the dog, and hilarity ensued. My is mom back left. /1
/2 I was blessed to have a chance to say goodbye yesterday and to help take care of her needs today. That is, after all, what this whole ridiculous business is about: that we’re here for each other, care for one another, and live in memory.
/3 I heard a great story about her today I hand them before. 1945, grandpa was coming back from the Pacific, due in SF port. She stowed mom with her parents and reserved a room at their favorite hotel in SF. But how to find him, to meet him?
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!