David and Sarah examine the decision to not prosecute Andrew McCabe, the eye-opening interview Harvey Weinstein's attorney gave, and answer which novels have most impacted them.
This was a great podcast. I want to add that you underestimate whoever is doing your digital work on this podcast. David talked about a non-existent train (as far as we listeners could tell) and Sarah talked about her non-existent nasally voice and cold. So after an inauspicious start, you guys are really shining. I was telling myself how clear both your voices are as I listened this morning. So whoever this unsung hero is who does your audio, kudos!! I noticed it!
Great discussion. It turns out that a big part of my job is approving prosecutions. We often grapple with the tough cases. Our standard is, is there a reasonable likelihood of conviction. This way, we are not limited to just the slam dunks, but can try to avoid the sure losers. We are willing to swing and miss, but not when that miss is highly likely.
As to proving a knowing lie, there is often other evidence to obtain that might be secret grand jury evidence that the public won't ever see unless there is a trial. Emails, texts, things on your hard drive or in the cloud. My guess is that they had some of that on Flynn, but that McCabe knew better than to create a digital record given his profession (but see Lisa Page and Peter Strzok). In any event, to prove that the lie was knowing, you are better off with as much other evidence beyond the lie itself that you can collect.
This was a great podcast. I want to add that you underestimate whoever is doing your digital work on this podcast. David talked about a non-existent train (as far as we listeners could tell) and Sarah talked about her non-existent nasally voice and cold. So after an inauspicious start, you guys are really shining. I was telling myself how clear both your voices are as I listened this morning. So whoever this unsung hero is who does your audio, kudos!! I noticed it!
Sign up to like comment
Great discussion. It turns out that a big part of my job is approving prosecutions. We often grapple with the tough cases. Our standard is, is there a reasonable likelihood of conviction. This way, we are not limited to just the slam dunks, but can try to avoid the sure losers. We are willing to swing and miss, but not when that miss is highly likely.
As to proving a knowing lie, there is often other evidence to obtain that might be secret grand jury evidence that the public won't ever see unless there is a trial. Emails, texts, things on your hard drive or in the cloud. My guess is that they had some of that on Flynn, but that McCabe knew better than to create a digital record given his profession (but see Lisa Page and Peter Strzok). In any event, to prove that the lie was knowing, you are better off with as much other evidence beyond the lie itself that you can collect.
Sign up to like comment