#preet bharara

[jasper-book-stash]

Deep understanding of any subject or set of facts requires active inquiry. That in turn requires asking questions. Every kind of question—searching questions, uncomfortable questions, broad questions, narrow questions, long-shot questions, repetitive questions, hypothetical questions. Many questions should be asked twice, perhaps even a third time, and rephrased each time to make sure the question was really understood and to make sure you understood the answer.

Smart questions are good; dumb questions are even better. There is no such thing as a dumb question, the saying goes, but the shorthand is useful here. So-called dumb questions are often foundational; they tend to get to the basics, to the bottom line. Dumb questions uncover superficial reasoning, reveal bad logic, and expose false experts. The world is populated, even in rarefied workplaces, with bullshit artists. People are forever using acronyms they can't expand, spouting jargon they can't translate, trafficking in concepts they don't grasp. They parrot shallow talking points and slogans and other people's recollections. When you take at face value everything said to you—even from supposed subject matter experts opining with great confidence—you are at risk of perpetuating everyone's superficial understanding of the matter at hand. There is no shame in asking basic questions, in virtually any context. In fact, it is essential to your personal understanding of any issue. Too often, people like to play in the treetops before working at the roots. That is a mistake in any job and in life generally.

I don't know the right number of questions a person should ask in any particular context. But what I do know is this: find the person in the new job who asks the fewest questions, and there's your problem. One veteran in my office gave this advice to newly minted supervisors: "People are going to come into your office and ask some crazy stuff. They're not the ones you need to worry about. It's the guy you haven't seen in six weeks."

-Doing Justice: A Prosecutor’s Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law, Preet Bharara (2019)

[uselectionnews]

Preet Bharara’s interview with Jill Lepore is absolutely fascinating. What stuck out for me was the comparison to Jefferson Davis, who never faced any meaningful consequences for commanding an army against the United States in a conflict that cost a staggering 750,000 lives. And neither did those who played key roles in the Confederacy. Donald Trump is in the early stages of facing consequences for his alleged actions on January 6, but if he is elected in 2024 and demands his attorney general drop the charges (assuming the matter is not finalised)— what then? It is an alarming situation that could get worse very quickly.

[spinelessdemsandwhinyrepublicans]

“I can chew and walk gum at the same time!” - - George Santos

You can’t make this stuff up.

[garudabluffs]

The Cases Against Donald Trump with Preet Bharara, Laura Coates, Neal Katyal and Thane Rosenbaum

Apr 21, 2024 The Cases Against Donald Trump with Preet Bharara, Laura Coates, Neal Katyal and Thane Rosenbaum Donald Trump’s post-presidency and his bid for a second term have been dominated by a dizzying number of criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits brought against him in various states, in both federal and state courts. Some have already been decided, while others are paused by appeals. Most are scheduled to go to trial before the Republican Nominating Convention. Two of the cases might reach the Supreme Court and require expedited decisions. Did Trump violate campaign finance laws? Is he guilty of espionage? Did the events on January 6, 2021, constitute an insurrection that disqualifies him from seeking federal office? Was he engaged in racketeering to defraud the American public and obstruct the certification of electoral votes? Are these cases merely a political ploy to upend his campaign? Join us in discussing this legal showdown that could decide this next presidential election with CNN’s Chief Legal Analyst, Laura Coates; MSNBC legal analyst and Supreme Court attorney, Neal Katyal; and former United States Attorney, Preet Bharara; moderated by law professor and FOLCS Creative Director, Thane Rosenbaum. Recorded April 7, 2024 at 92nd Street Y, New York.

VIDEO READ MORE Transcript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0VfRK8muxM

338 Comments

[truck-fump]

Preet Bharara: Putting <b>Trump</b> behind bars 'remains an option' for gag order violations

New Post has been published on https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DAcJlofUALZY&ct=ga&cd=CAIyGjUzM2UwMTY5ZmFhZTIwMGQ6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AOvVaw05kr2v3jCOD-1q1ka49LJ0

Preet Bharara: Putting Trump behind bars 'remains an option' for gag order violations

Fmr. U.S. Attorney for the Southern District Of New York Preet Bharara joins Katie Phang to recap the week of jury selection in the Trump hush …

[jasper-book-stash]

The investigator's orientation matters. The mind-set and motivation are key. You must want to find the truth, must want to get it right. All too often, people simply want to win, facts and truth be damned. But to begin an inquiry, when justice is the goal, you must not be wedded to any result, must not have a thesis in advance. To be open-minded means proceeding without a theory. You develop a thesis from the facts, not vise versa.

Why is this so important? Once you commit to a theory or a thesis, it's hard to let it go. Psychologists are familiar with this phenomenon. People tend to tune out facts that conflict with their original thesis. They will downplay contrary evidence or, even worse, may not even recognize new facts as undercutting their first belief. First beliefs are sticky. Unproven first beliefs weaken your bain and dull your thinking just as a fever weakens your body. In any given inquiry, without constant vigilance, obvious first principles are at risk of degrading into facile catchphrases. You know them all: keep an open mind, don't prejudge, don't assume, don't jump to conclusions, guard against bias.

This open-minded approach meets resistance because it slows the speed of an investigation. After a horrible disaster of a violent crime, the world understandably clamors for accountability; they want the bad guys caught. The victims have faces; sympathy and empathy naturally pour forth. It's understandable that people want to see the faces of the evildoers. They want culprits, and they want them fast. In the wake of a crime, everyone turns into a NASCAR fan. They want speed, speed, speed.

Speed is an investigation's best friend and also its worst enemy. Speed is your friend because some evidence evaporates like a puddle in the sun. Memories lapse, witnesses walk, documents go missing too. So you want to get your hands on all the nuggets you can in short order.

But undue speed can cause you to overlook evidence or misinterpret it. It can force mistakes. As the Roman senator Tacitus said, "Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty." When you are always racing forward, it becomes hard to take a step back. But stepping back can be the key to a case. An investigator must maintain a near-impossible balance between patience and impatience. A burning drive to find the truth quickly is essential, but so is a calm resolve to take your time to get it right.

-Doing Justice: A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law, Preet Bharara (2019)

[artcollectorsnews]

Art Crime Pays: Trump Pardons Helly Nahmad, the Art World’s Cartoon Villain

The pardons favored Trump cronies, allies, and business associates — in the manner of a bouncer fingering VIPs from behind a tatty velvet rope at Le Baron during Art Basel Miami Beach

Helly Nahmad Walk

It was April 30, 2014, and Hillel “Helly” Nahmad was doing his best courtroom grovel.

“Your honor, I am ashamed,” the then 35-year-old art dealer told U.S. District Court Judge Jesse M. Furman inside Manhattan’s Thurgood Marshall Courthouse. “My family is a private family and I have brought dishonor to it . . . No matter what your sentence today, I will never forgive myself. Others who love me may forgive, but I will not.”

The scion of the famously secretive Nahmad clan — a three-billion-dollar art-dealing empire heavily leveraged with Picassos and Renoirs and with economic interests across the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East — Nahmad was being tried as part of a wide-ranging, 34-defendant racketeering and money-laundering investigation. The case was brought by the Violent and Organized Crime Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, led at the time by Preet Bharara, who was fired by President Donald Trump early in 2017.

The charges against Nahmad — who runs a glitzy secondary-market gallery located on the first floor of the Carlyle Hotel — were weighty enough to galvanize the Feds and sufficiently boldface to inspire an Aaron Sorkin film, the Jessica Chastain vehicle Molly’s Game. According to The New York Times, Nahmad was charged with captaining a $100 million gambling ring that included professional athletes, actors Tobey Maguire and Leonardo DiCaprio, and several organized crime figures, among them Russian oligarch and Trump acquaintance Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov (the Uzbek gangster is still at large in the vast criminal underworld that is the Russian Federation). Additionally, Nahmad was accused of bilking an unnamed female client described as being in “dire financial circumstances” out of more than $100,000 in an otherwise “routine” art sale.

Facing as many as 100 years in prison, Nahmad was found guilty and sentenced, incredibly, to just a year and a day (he effectively dodged racketeering, money laundering, and conspiracy charges, and was indicted on a single gambling count). He was also ordered to pay a $30,000 fine, plus forfeit $6.4 million and his interest in Raoul Dufy’s 1937 painting Carnaval à Nice, which was employed in yet another allegedly fraudulent transaction.

Before the trial ended, Nahmad delivered himself of a remarkable allocution. Unlike the statement defendants regularly convey to judges to accept responsibility, humanize themselves, and mitigate sentences, Nahmad’s expression of remorse instead mimicked comic-strip beggary: his plea for leniency described how, after his April 2013 arrest, “Nahmad was a blubbery mess who collapsed into his sister’s arms.” Writing for the now defunct publication DNA Info, reporter James Fanelli also reported on Nahmad’s offer to chaperone underprivileged youth on visits to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in lieu of prison time: “I do not have a great education in other subjects, but I really do know a lot about art and I think I could really reach young people in a good way and hopefully introduce them to a world they might not otherwise visit.”

The court summarily dismissed such expressions of contrition as insincere. According to Judge Furman: “Mr. Nahmad’s view of the world, at least when he thinks that no one is watching . . . [is] that he can take advantage of the situation. To allow him to use his family’s money to buy his way out of this would sow contempt for the law.”

Fast forward to January 20, 2021. As part of his final febrile hours inside the White House, Donald Trump — the Biff Tannen of rich boy privilege — issued pardons to 73 convicts, including Nahmad, the Snidley Whiplash of the art world. An official White House communication described the 41-year-old art perp as having led “an exemplary life” since his conviction. (Requests for comment on the pardon sent to Nahmad’s gallery went unanswered.)

According to Kenneth P. Vogel of The New York Times, only 25 of Donald Trump’s almost 240 pardons and commutations came through the process the Justice Department normally uses to identify and vet worthy petitions of clemency. The rest favored an ad hoc process that privileged Trump cronies, allies, and business associates — in the manner of a bouncer fingering VIPs from behind a tatty velvet rope at Le Baron during Art Basel Miami Beach.

At first, second, and third glance, the Nahmad pardon suggests a tangle of plutocratic quids, pros, and quos. Nahmad owns the entire 51st floor of Manhattan’s Trump Tower, for which he paid $21 million, in 2016. His lawyer, Benjamin Brafman — who previously defended Harvey Weinstein and Martin Shkreli — also helped obtain pardons for two more noteworthy clients: conspiracy theorist and campaign-finance fraudster Dinesh D’Souza and disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Another longtime Brafman client who was recently pardoned: witness-tamperer and tax cheat Charles Kushner, father of Donald Trump’s ex–senior adviser and son-in-law. The relationship patterns are as ugly as a MAGA Christmas sweater. (If other presidents, such as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, issued controversial pardons — the former pardoned fugitive banker Mark Rich, the latter Yankees owner George Steinbrenner — Trump’s forgiveness stands out for the close proximity of folks he has let off the hook, including former campaign advisers, staffers, and in-laws.)

In a Trump-free universe, pardons and commutations are overseen by federal prosecutors and the U.S. Attorney General.  Typically, they are also reviewed by the judges involved in the original sentencing. Applicants are evaluated on their post-conviction conduct, the seriousness of their crimes, whether they are remorseful, and, ultimately, personal recommendations. Though no recommendations for Nahmad’s pardon are yet forthcoming, Judge Furman characterized his 2014 letters of support as coming from art-market folks who “had some reason to curry favor” with the Nahmads. One letter came from Pace Gallery honcho Marc Glimcher. He told the court that Nahmad “is very simply the most honest and trustworthy person we have the privilege to work with.”

“Gambling has always been a part of my life,” Nahmad told Judge Furman before being convicted, “I watched my father and his friends play games . . . for high stakes. It was a part of his life the way the art business was. It was almost an addiction. It crossed the line into my being part of illegal gambling. I knew we were no longer just betting and I should have stopped. I didn’t and I have only myself to blame.”

Besides throwing his own father under the bus as, ahem, ethically challenged — in 2016 the Panama Papers connected David Nahmad to ownership of a Nazi-looted painting, Amedeo Modigliani’s Seated Man With a Cane (1918) — Nahmad fils conveniently left out his own larcenous worldview. In 2014, a wiretapped phone conversation recorded Helly as saying that wealth can be created by those who “circumvent the system” and “cheat and lie.” Here’s a modest proposal for those sick of having the art trade routinely compared to the shadowy worlds of drug cartels and gun trafficking. Remember Nahmad’s words and who uttered them, reject business as usual, and trash the idea that art crime pays. ❖

[antonio-velardo]

Antonio Velardo shares: Case Closed? by Preet Bharara

By Preet Bharara Every day prosecutors choose to keep former targets in the dark, never telling them that the case against them is dead. Published: November 12, 2023 at 09:00AM from NYT Opinion https://ift.tt/OSF1dQR via IFTTT

[abcnewspr]

"This Week" Listings: Former Vice President Mike Pence and FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell Sunday on "This Week" with Co-Anchor Jonathan Karl

Media Advisory for Sunday, August 20, 2023

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE & FEMA ADMINISTRATOR DEANNE CRISWELL SUNDAY ON “THIS WEEK” WITH CO-ANCHOR JONATHAN KARL

Mike Pence

(R) Presidential Candidate

Former Vice President

Exclusive

Deanne Criswell

FEMA Administrator

Preet Bharara

Former U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York

THE POWERHOUSE ROUNDTABLE

Donna Brazile

Former DNC Chair

ABC News Contributor

Rick Klein

ABC News Political Director

 Asma Khalid

NPR White House Correspondent

ABC News Contributor

Sarah Isgur

Former Trump Justice Department Spokesperson

ABC News Contributor

Plus, ABC News Senior Reporter Emmanuelle Saliba reports on the growth of artificial intelligence-powered tools and the race to restore trust online ahead of the 2024 election.

### 

[nothingunrealistic]

PAUL SMITHS — The cut-throat world of Wall Street has come to Paul Smiths this week as film crews with the Showtime-produced show “Billions” are filming its seventh season around the snow-covered town, at the White Pine Camp and on Paul Smith’s College’s campus.

Filming in the area is scheduled to wrap today.

Showtime’s Senior Vice President and Entertainment Public Relations spokesperson Amanda Cary said “Billions” is shot on a “closed set” so the Enterprise could not take photos of production. The Enterprise asked several questions, but Cary said they cannot share any information at this stage in production but could reveal more when the season gets closer to airing.

Showtime has not yet announced an airing date for the new season.

The show focuses on a game of cat and mouse between hedge fund managers and federal attorney Chuck Rhoades, played by Paul Giamatti, as the wealthy work hard to keep one step ahead of the the law trying to bring them down. The characters in the show are sometimes based on real-life people — Rhoades as former U.S. District Attorney Preet Bharara, and the Wall Street moguls as amalgamations of actual financial fat-cats the writers have spent time around.

The big “Billions” news for followers of the show is that fan-favorite character Bobby Axelrod, played by Damien Lewis, is expected to be returning after a season-long hiatus.

It is unclear if the episode, or episodes, filmed here will be set in the Adirondacks or elsewhere.

At the end of season five, Bobby Axelrod fled to Switzerland to avoid the law.

On roads around town, there are yellow signs pointing to “Base Camp,” “Catering” and “Billions.”

Outside the college’s forestry cabin on Wednesday there were lights up on scaffolding pointing in to the second floor of the cabin.

Employees of the show, who did not want to be named because of secrecy around the show’s production, said they were enjoying being in the Adirondacks. The show is primarily set in New York City, so this was a welcome winter location for them to be working at, they said.

Staff of the show were very tight-lipped on Wednesday, not revealing anything about the show to avoid leaks and spoilers.

the websites for white pine camp and paul smith’s college

[ear-worthy]

Where Should We Begin? Podcast Goes From Spotify To Vox

 The football world is buzzing with rumors of a trade with NFL quarterback great Aaron Rodgers of the Green Bay Packers to the New York Jets. In the podcasting world, a trade of major value was just consummated this week.

Vox Media announced a strategic partnership with Esther Perel that will bring the acclaimed psychotherapist and bestselling author’s hit podcast, Where Should We Begin?, to the Vox Media Podcast Network. 

Since it launched in 2017, the show has established a loyal audience of millions and frequently ranks among the top shows in trending podcast charts. Each episode features real, anonymous pairs in one-time therapy sessions, providing listeners with an intimate, personal, and complex take on modern relationships — both at home and at work. The show joins Vox Media from Spotify, which was its home for the last three years. 

Now, media psychology experts like Dr. Phil and Dr. Drew have tarnished the profession of media psychologist, but thankfully Esther Perel continues to redeem the profession. Unlike some media psychologists, Perel does not exploit her guests but listens carefully and acts like more of a counselor than an external, judge-y conscience like Dr. Phil. 

Starting this summer, Where Should We Begin? will ramp up to a weekly, always-on show and cover a wide spectrum of modern relationships ranging from couples to friends to work colleagues, and Vox Media will take on sales, marketing, and distribution responsibilities. Magnificent Noise, a boutique podcast production company, will continue to produce the podcast, and special bonus content will be available for subscribers via a partnership with Apple Podcasts. Vox Media will also work with Perel to explore potential editorial collaborations with New York Magazine and The Cut, as well as creative collaborations, such as live events. “When I started Where Should We Begin?, I opened up the four walls of my office for the very first time and began a global public health campaign, specifically for relationships,” says Perel. “As the podcast has grown, we’ve eagerly sought creative partners to help us bring the podcast to even broader audiences. We’re beyond excited to begin working with Vox Media to bring new episodes to listeners every week – and perhaps a few surprises outside the feed too.” "Esther brings a unique combination of talents to the podcast space: she informs us, entertains us, answers big questions that we've all had on our minds, and helps her listeners improve the relationships in their lives," says Ray Chao, Vox Media's SVP & General Manager of Audio and Digital Video. "She empowers us all to understand and navigate what it means to be human. We're beyond thrilled to bring Esther's influential voice to the Vox Media Podcast Network." As I said, Perel is recognized as one of today’s most insightful and original voices on modern relationships. Fluent in nine languages, she helms a therapy practice in New York City (note that the voices featured in the podcast are from one-time sessions and not Perel’s ongoing patients). Perel also serves as an organizational consultant for Fortune 500 companies around the world. Her celebrated TED Talks have garnered more than 40 million views and her bestselling books, Mating in Captivity and The State of Affairs, are global phenomena translated into more than 30 languages. Perel joins a roster of influential voices at the Vox Media Podcast Network that includes Kara Swisher (On with Kara Swisher; Pivot), Scott Galloway (The Prof G Pod; Pivot), Preet Bharara (Stay Tuned with Preet), Phoebe Judge (Criminal), Sean Rameswaram (Today, Explained), Noel King (Today, Explained), Sam Sanders (Into It), Nilay Patel (Decoder; The Vergecast), and more. Where Should We Begin? is out with a new episode featuring a couple torn apart by the war in Ukraine. Listen to the episode  wherever you get your podcasts.

[hcovopdf]

Doing Justice: A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law - Preet Bharara

EPUB & PDF Ebook Doing Justice: A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law | EBOOK ONLINE DOWNLOAD

by Preet Bharara.

Download Link : DOWNLOAD Doing Justice: A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law

Read More : READ Doing Justice: A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law

Ebook PDF Doing Justice: A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law | EBOOK ONLINE DOWNLOAD Hello Book lovers, If you want to download free Ebook, you are in the right place to download Ebook. Ebook Doing Justice: A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law EBOOK ONLINE DOWNLOAD in English is available for free here, Click on the download LINK below to download Ebook Doing Justice: A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law 2020 PDF Download in English by Preet Bharara (Author).

 Description Book: 

*A New York Times Bestseller* An important overview of the way our justice system works, and why the rule of law is essential to our survival as a society--from the one-time federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, and host of the Doing Justice podcast.Preet Bharara has spent much of his life examining our legal system, pushing to make it better, and prosecuting those looking to subvert it. Bharara believes in our system and knows it must be protected, but to do so, he argues, we must also acknowledge and allow for flaws both in our justice system and in human nature.Bharara uses the many illustrative anecdotes and case histories from his storied, formidable career--the successes as well as the failures--to shed light on the realities of the legal system and the consequences of taking action.Inspiring and inspiringly written, Doing Justice gives us hope that rational and objective fact-based thinking, combined with compassion, can help us achieve truth and justice in

[intothewildsstuff]

Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara believes the Justice Department is "on a path to charge" Trump

Finally!!!!