172

Continuing from the preceding post

So in addition to the unexplainable deal, we should add this case to those where investigation stops as soon as it reaches the doorsteps of the big guys? 

Back to the deal itself, if I were a Congress Member I would call on bringing that United States District Attorney to ask him to convince me how or why with that much amount of data they needed the service of that woman to convict those who were convicted? It is hard to think of a case offering more potential leads than that. I also would question the action of the judge for at least impeachment and removal from the bench.

Notice that if one were to ask those questions close to when that deal or sentencing happened he could have been asked how do you know it is not being investigated? But we are now more than 7 years from that time, were you provided with any explanation why such a hardly seen as needed deal was made and the low sentencing that followed? Another sign for how much applying the benefit of the doubt here is exaggerated at the expense of making the respectable use of the freedom of speech.   

Another potential sign for the corruption here is how the American Greed Show mentioned that the deal with that woman was that she should not be sentenced for more than 5 years then the sentence came for one year. If that one year sentence was only the choice of the judge from the range of that 5 year deal, this suggests an effort to spread the load of the outrageous appearance of the verdict.