The problem with white collar crime

White-collar crime: this kind of crime spans a wide range of frauds committed by business and government professionals. These crimes are characterized by deceit, concealment, or violation of trust and are not dependent on the application or threat of physical force or violence; Wikipedia: refers to financially motivated, nonviolent or non directly violent crime committed by individuals, businesses and government professionals 

The New York Times and other outlets report that two key New York state prosecutors have resigned from a case that is gathering evidence to potentially prosecute the ex-president for his past business practices in New York. In my limited experience, white collar crime is hard to prosecute and get convictions for. My guess is that about 0.05% of all white collar crime is prosecuted. Lack of sufficient evidence to convict is the main reason. Most of the few cases that are brought to trial lead to a conviction because sufficient evidence to convince a jury was found. Plausible deniability is a powerful shield that protects white collar crooks who know how to use it as a defensive weapon against law enforcement.

The main problem is insufficient evidence to convince a jury of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. There are ways to create reasonable doubt in at least 1 juror on a jury. Systemic factors also inherently create room for reasonable doubt, e.g., no one takes any responsibility for anything they can weasel out of. That is just standard business practice. 

So, ‘reasonable doubt’ is all that it takes in the mind of one juror to get a crook off the hook. There may also be a limited resource problem because prosecuting white collar crime take a lot of time to gather evidence. 

With the resignation of the two key prosecutors after their boss expressed doubts about the case, it looks like the ex-president will get off of white collar crimes he committed in New York state. The NYT writes:

The two prosecutors leading the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his business practices abruptly resigned on Wednesday amid a monthlong pause in their presentation of evidence to a grand jury, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, submitted their resignations because the new Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, indicated to them that he had doubts about moving forward with a case against Mr. Trump, the people said.

Early this month, (Trump’s accountants] Mazars notified the Trump Organization that it would no longer serve as its accountant and that it could no longer stand behind a decade of Mr. Trump’s financial statements.

Mazars said it had not, “as a whole,” found material discrepancies between the information the Trump Organization provided and the true value of Mr. Trump’s assets.

Even with the retraction from Mazars, a criminal case would likely be difficult to prove. The documents, known as statements of financial condition, contain a number of disclaimers, including acknowledgments that Mr. Trump’s accountants had neither audited nor authenticated his claims.

And the prosecutors would have to show that Mr. Trump’s penchant for hyperbole crossed the line into criminality, a tall order when it comes to something as subjective as property values. A case like this might hinge on the testimony of a Trump insider, but the prosecutors have not persuaded Mr. Weisselberg to cooperate with the investigation, depriving them of the type of insider witness whose testimony can be crucial to complicated white-collar criminal trials.

Another challenge is that Mr. Trump’s lenders might not appear to a jury to be sympathetic victims.[1] The lenders, which made millions of dollars in interest from Mr. Trump, conducted their own assessments of his assets.

The advantages a white collar criminal has are huge and obvious. Mazars hides behind disclaimers. Juries will not be sympathetic to big lenders who made lots of money helping the ex-president commits his crimes. Witnesses refuse to cooperate. Maybe it is a miracle that any white collar criminals are ever convicted.

Adding to the deep insult of his probably unpunishable criminality, the ex-president publicly blasts the District Attorney as a politically motivated black racist, even though his predecessor DA was a White guy who started the investigation into Trump’s corrupt business dealings. 

When I complain about the rule of law being under attack and weak, a major part of what I am complaining about is immunity from prosecution for white collar crimes.[1] Street thugs are not white collar criminals. Rich and powerful people are. They have the opportunity, a protective system and an intense motive, more wealth and/or power, that drives them. Why not be a white collar crook? The reward is usually quite high and, when a good opportunity presents itself, the risk of accountability is quite low.

Footnote: 

1. A lawsuit I was very familiar with involved an unsympathetic jury (not a white collar crime). An attorney committed malpractice and that cost his clients about $800,000 in avoidable loss. The jury convicted the attorney for malpractice but awarded his former clients $1 in damage. Why just $1? Two reasons. First, the clients were paying the attorney “only” $187/hour when the going rate was closer to maybe about $250/hour. The attorney, not the clients, suggested that rate because that was his rate for similar work and they accepted it.

Second, was the defense attorney’s closing argument based on a story that he claimed was personal. His story was this: Me and my wife went out to dinner. I was looking forward to a nice steak. But when we ordered, she made me get the chicken. End of story.

I was completely baffled by that story and its relevance to the lawsuit. My confusion aside, apparently the chicken dinner story left a big impression on the jury. Apparently, they thought the attorney’s wife was a cheap skate and he deserved his steak, not the chicken. The jury transposed that reasoning into the lawsuit and decided the two clients were cheap skates and all they deserved was $1 for their cheapness. 

So, the clients paid ~$300,000 to their attorneys and got $1 in return for their loss. They would have been ~$300,000 better off just letting their loss go. 

Lessons: Juries are humans and can be deeply flawed. Humans are often (usually?) not rational beings. The legal system is not close to perfect. To protect the innocent, the law is heavily tilted in favor of the accused, especially accused white collar criminals. That tilt also protects the guilty, especially smart white collar criminals who know how to build and maintain plausible deniability.

Plausible deniability in action

 

Freedom!

 

Question: Can a free country have too many freedoms?

If no, why not?  Explain.

If yes, where do you see that "imposing on a freedom" line drawn?  Please give details.

     Some ideas to think about:

-Whenever a freedom breaks the law

-Whenever a freedom turns violent

-Whenever a freedom creates public panic and/or disruption

-Whenever a freedom harms another (physically rather than emotionally)

-Whenever a freedom harms another (physically and/or emotionally)

-Whenever a freedom exacerbates an already problem situation (e.g., not getting vaccinated or wearing an uncomfortable mask)

-Whenever a freedom of the one outweighs the freedom of the many

-Whenever a freedom to not bake a gay cake or preform a gay wedding is imposed

-Whenever a freedom to keep and bear arms is threatened

-Whenever a fetus is threatened

-Whenever a lie or falsehood is perpetuated

-Whenever a religion is threatened 

-Whenever etc.

Thanks for posting and recommending.

How to punish Putin and Russia:

 All the civilized world needs to come together, especially the EU and NATO, as well including Australian, NZ, Japan, S. Korea, etc:

Pull ALL of your citizens out of Russia, then ban ALL travel to and fro, especially ban all tourism to.

Immediately stop ALL imports of anything from Russia, no more importing vodka.

Immediately shut all of your ports to Russian interests and stop shipping anything to Russia.

Ban ALL Russian banks and financial institutions and immediately seize all Russian assets held in the above mentioned countries.

Close ALL Russian embassies and send them all back to Russia.

Ban Russians from ALL international sporting events and do NOT participate in any held in Russia.

Send to Ukraine, IMMEDIATELY, our most deadly weapons. Make a war too costly for them.

Russia engages in cyber attacks on other countries, imagine if ALL the other countries, especially those listed above, ALL engaged in full non-stop cyber attacks on Russian interests.

Then hire me as special advisor to NATO and the U.S. because quite frankly...… the advisors they have now don't have a clue what to do about Putin or Russia.

Your welcome.

Some poll data: What Republicans think about some things

The Washington Post writes:

Polling from YouGov conducted for the Economist in January provides an apples-to-apples comparison between Putin and various American leaders.

A comment here by homebuilding about the Republican very unfavorable opinion data:

The LIES are winning and Decency is WAY BACK in the field it would seem, most especially if the Dems don't start paying attention and getting all their votes out in Nov.

Think of it......Putin being see in a more favorable light than five other entities that support decency and fairness....

Questions: Is it time or overdue for Dems to sharpen their messaging, or has Dem messaging been just fine, or at least acceptable, so far? Or, does Dem messaging make no difference in swaying public opinion no matter what they say?

Domestic political rot endangers the future of a free humanity

The GOP plan to destroy democracy

and the rule of law

Rick Scott - our next president?

He is concerned

It is irresponsible to talk in irrationally apocalyptic terms without a solid basis in supporting facts and sound reasoning. The question is this: Is it irresponsible to talk of an endangered future for humanity based significantly or mostly on the state of internal US politics at this point in time under current circumstances? Some context might help frame this rationally.

The Ukraine crisis has served to highlight the growing divisions among Republicans on foreign policy that began with Donald Trump’s presidency and continues after his electoral defeat as adherents to his “America First” approach clash with the party’s remaining hawks who for several decades rallied the party around the idea of projecting a muscular U.S. presence abroad.

This divide has been on stark display over the last 24 hours as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ordered incursion into Ukraine creates chaos in Eastern Europe and Republicans rally around the idea that it is Biden’s fault, calling him weak, but failing to provide a coherent party position on what the White House should to counter Moscow’s aggression.

Some want stiffer sanctions and said they should have been put in place ahead of the invasion as a deterrent. Others question why the United States needs to be involved at all. Regardless, in their telling, it’s Biden’s fault.

Trump and some of his supporters and former aides have even offered odd forms of praise for Putin, a ruthless autocrat, as they seek to tear down Biden.

“There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re going to keep peace all right. No, but think of it, here’s a guy who’s very savvy,” Trump said during an interview Tuesday with a conservative news outlet, praising Putin’s moves and suggesting the Russian troops would serve as peacekeepers.

In recent weeks, as the crisis built up, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo offered similar praise for Putin’s strategic thinking. “We shouldn’t treat him as the JV,” Pompeo said in a late January radio interview on Fox News. “He is a credible, capable statesman. And that’s why the mistake of not putting deterrence in place over the last year has led to this moment that we’re suffering from today.”  

One long-shot GOP candidate for a House seat from New York followed Trump’s lead by praising Putin for protecting “the church, tradition and Russian culture” better than Western governments protect these institutions.  

On Tuesday, McCarthy joined with his leadership team and senior Republicans on those committees to issue a blistering statement that faulted Biden for not moving fast enough with military aid and other means to counter Putin.

“Sadly, President Biden consistently chose appeasement and his tough talk on Russia was never followed by strong action. Lethal aid was slow-walked, anti-air and anti-ship capabilities were never directly provided, pre-invasion sanctions proportionate to the aggression Putin had already committed were never imposed,” McCarthy and the other GOP leaders wrote.

There you have it. Most but not all Republican Party elites praise Russia's unprovoked aggression against a weak nation or just blame Democrats. Putin is not remotely close to a credible or capable statesman. He is a capable, ruthless tyrant kleptocrat with a powerful military at his command. Pompeo apparently cannot see this. He did not articulate exactly what deterrence should be put in place because he has no idea of what to do other than blame Biden. Meanwhile, our morally rotted ex-president flat out praises Putin’s anti-democratic aggression and some crackpot Republican candidates see good in Putin’s tyranny. The GOP leadership is just brimming with anti-Democratic and anti-democracy ideas.[1]

Some key points and reasoning are: 

• The Republican Party no longer stands for defense of democracy either at home or abroad, regardless of how hard they deny it and pretend the Democrats, not themselves, are the tyrant-kleptocrat wannabes. 
• American democracy is unlikely to stand in the face of corruption, autocracy and a greedy Christian theocracy when almost half the country favors the Republican Party’s open attacks on democracy, the rule of law, truth and honest, effective secular government.
• The loss of America as the main global defender of liberal, secular democracy leaves the remaining democracies alone in trying to defend against high level corruption and tyranny that Russia, China and some other autocratic countries are now engaged in.
• The corrupt political rot that has consumed the GOP is the main cause of powerful anti-democratic sentiment in the US, which endangers the future of a free humanity.

Questions: Are the facts and/or reasoning sufficient (or not) to reasonably see significant danger to the future of a free humanity from the politically rotted Republican Party? Or, is the GOP not significantly rotted and doing just fine in defending secular democracy at home and abroad?

Who is more apocalyptic, Germaine or the GOP, or are they tied?

Footnote: 

1. More evidence of radical right Republican Party authoritarianism. A Washington Post opinion piece comments that Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), a potential future presidential candidate and chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, released an 11-point blueprint he hopes Republicans will rally around. It is a blatant anti-government, anti-democracy culture war document. It’s preamble includes this fear mongering crackpottery and lies: 

Dear Fellow Americans, the militant left now controls the entire federal government, the news media, academia, Hollywood, and most corporate boardrooms. 

Among the things they plan to change or destroy are: American history, patriotism, border security, the nuclear family, gender, traditional morality, capitalism, fiscal responsibility, opportunity, rugged individualism, Judeo-Christian values, dissent, free speech, color blindness, law enforcement, religious liberty, parental involvement in public schools, and private ownership of firearms. 

Is this the beginning of the end of America? Only if we allow it to be.

Apparently, Scott believes that Fox News and the rest of the anti-democratic radical right propaganda Leviathan are not part of the news media. He is arguably mostly right about that. And, I hereby demand that the Republican Party defend my rugged individualism, whatever the hell that means. What is the the beginning of the end of America is Scott’s deranged 11-point blueprint to tyranny and corruption.

The first point is this: “Our kids will say the pledge of allegiance, salute the Flag, learn that America is a great country, and choose the school that best fits them.” There's your radical right Christian nationalist direct attack on secular public school education. It is first on the Republican culture war list.

Those sneaky, cheating election subverting Democrats 

need to be stopped

Other points include “We will protect, defend, and promote the American Family at all costs,”), “Men are men, women are women, and unborn babies are babies,” and “We will secure our border, finish building the wall, and name it after President Donald Trump.” And, to attack and further cripple effective governance in accord with the long-standing GOP tactic called “Starve the Beast” Scott proposes (i) requiring “term limits” for government employees, and (ii) cutting IRS funding and staffing by 50 percent. Tax evasion (cheating) will increase from the already shocking ~$1.2 trillion/year to a double shocking higher amount. The former item is a direct attack on democracy by crippling government competence, which is what years of experience can bring to a person. The latter is another Republican Party open declaration of war on the federal government. 

Apocalyptic GOP scare mongering and lies

Reduce federal employees by 25% in 5 years

The GOP hates government, especially competent government

because competence makes the private sector look immoral and greedy 

It's too dangerous to vindicate the rule of law against the rich or powerful?

A Washington Post article, Prosecuting Trump would set a risky precedent. Not prosecuting would be worse, looks at the issue of whether to prosecute the ex-president for crimes committed in office. There is solid evidence that he committed felony obstruction of justice while trying to subvert the Mueller investigation. Almost 700 former prosecutors signed a public letter stating they would prosecute on the basis of evidence the Mueller report disclosed. One legal analysis finds four instances of obstruction. That is four felonies.

Another analysis found five felonies.

The question that WaPo asks whether it is too dangerous to prosecute the ex-president, not whether there is enough evidence to bring charges. There is enough evidence.[1] 

Before he was elected, Biden stated that he did not want to prosecute the ex-president. His rationale was imbecilic nonsense, something about not wanting to divide the country. Therefore, Biden and Attorney General Garland appear to have decided that it is too dangerous to vindicate the rule of law. 

The WaPo analyzes it this way:

In September 1974, however, one month after Nixon left office, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. Ford later told a congressional subcommittee that the pardon was designed to “shift our attentions from the pursuit of a fallen President to the pursuit of the urgent needs of a rising nation.”

It didn’t — not in the immediate aftermath and, in some ways, not ever. .... Some were livid. One powerful man had essentially condoned the criminality of another. The get-out-of-jail-free card exacerbated public cynicism and deepened the nation’s social fractures.

Nearly five decades later, Joe Biden is president, and a pardon for Donald Trump isn’t happening. But whether Trump will eventually be prosecuted for his conduct in the White House is more of a conundrum: If the country crosses this inviolate threshold, all hell will break loose. If we don’t cross it, all hell will break loose. There will be no “shifting our attentions” by advocates of either course. And whichever path the nation follows will have lasting repercussions. One thing is increasingly clear — fear will play a greater role than facts in determining it.

.... Trump’s words and deeds have demonstrated that his actions tend to be intentional. If an ordinary citizen had pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” votes to overturn the 2020 election; systematically misrepresented the value of his assets to the IRS and banks; funneled money to silence a paramour; or put government documents down a toilet, this person would almost certainly be facing an array of criminal charges. More than a year after he left office, Trump isn’t facing any such thing yet.

The stakes are enormous. The rule of law, the notion that we are all equal under our criminal justice system, is among the noblest of principles but also the ugliest of myths. The question of putting Trump on trial before a jury of his peers is a test for a principle of democracy that has often proved out of reach for most Americans.

How this unequal system of justice faces a crossroads. Any decision about prosecuting the former president centers on two conflicting fears: Inaction mocks the nation’s professed ideal that no one sits above the law — and Americans might wonder whether our democracy can survive what amounts to the explicit approval of lawlessness. But prosecuting deposed leaders is the stuff of banana republics.

The fear of the banana republic is hardly an idle one — and here Trump is a central figure, too. He has boasted of his willingness to go that route: In 2016, he ran by pledging that he intended to use the power of federal law enforcement to help his friends and pay back his enemies. His rallies routinely erupted with chants of “lock her up,” directed at his opponent, Hillary Clinton. When as president he told then-FBI Director James Comey that he should be “letting Flynn go,” he was doing as he had promised, using the presidency to try to save an ally from criminal investigation. Trump sees the law and law enforcement as a weapon: .... Trump has said that if he gets a second term, he would pardon hundreds of violent insurrectionists charged in the attack on the Capitol. More recently, his remarks about the investigation his administration began under special counsel John Durham suggest that he is still game to go after foes by wildly accusing them of crimes. .... and he issued a statement saying that “in a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death.” This was “treason at the highest level,” he said.

Not prosecuting Trump has already signaled to his supporters that accountability is for suckers. “The warning signs of instability that we have identified in other places are the same signs that, over the past decade, I’ve begun to see on our own soil,” political scientist Barbara Walter wrote in “How Civil Wars Start.” The signs include a hollowing out of institutions, “manipulated to serve the interests of some over others.” (emphasis added)

Questions: Is there not enough evidence to prosecute Trump for anything? Should Garland refuse to prosecute in the name of political or social unity? Is American unity currently more illusion than reality? 

Footnote: 

1. The WaPo article describes the ex-president’s legal situation like this:

Prosecutorial threats are multiplying: Bank and tax fraud charges are under consideration in Manhattan. In Fulton County, Ga., a special grand jury is investigating Trump’s interference in the 2020 election. In a Washington courtroom, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta told a convicted Jan. 6 Capitol rioter that he was a pawn in a scheme by more powerful people, .... The National Archives requested that the Justice Department open an investigation into Trump’s mishandling of top-secret documents that the government recently retrieved from his Florida estate. Trump still faces legal jeopardy for obstructing justice during Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election (remember that one?). During the 2016 campaign, Trump allegedly orchestrated hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels (the charges that landed his handler Michael Cohen in prison referred to Trump as Individual #1). This list is hardly exhaustive and omits the dozen-plus civil lawsuits and civil investigations Trump faces. (emphasis added)