Replies

I would never underestimate what a judge can do, especially if involves what transpires inside his courtroom.....

Thank you for expressing some common sense.

So many idiots on this thread are just so full of themselves and their snark tonight that they can't seem to muster the least little bit of appreciation for the fact that setting up a criminal syndicate is a process.

And so far this set up is going just the way we'd all want it to go, too.

Some mistake their depressive snark with saying something meaningful, when in reality they have contributed nothing substantive to the discussion.

The judge basically said to the IRS, "That's the best set of excuses you can give me for your sad-assed behavior -- and in MY courtroom, no less?? Come back and try again. You've got a week."

The judge is setting up these IRS lackeys. The IRS came to him with "the best" they had and now they have to try to come up with another story that's better than the last and somehow doesn't contradict the first story in anyway or else someone's gonna have perjury written all over their face.

And maybe that's the point. That's when it will get real interesting ... who among them will be persuadable to flip in exchange for reduced charges?

The guy with the popcorn picture has it right.

FReegards!

Agamemnon said: "Thank you for expressing some common sense."

You're welcome.

Of course everything depends upon the judge truly wanting to make the executive branch accountable to the people. If not, then he can pretty easily tie things up, requiring an appeal of his every decision.

Many of us remember Watergate. Nixon was ordered by the courts to turn over secret audiotapes recorded in the Oval Office. Claims of "executive privilege" do not extend to evidence of felonious behavior.

If the judge in this case demands evidence, I think he will get it.

Sixty-five people were convicted of felonies during Watergate, many of whom were lawyers and who had no direct involvement in the original crime. Such a thing could happen here.