As for my other comments, they were untoward & I apologize.

As for the extra cost of prosecuting Walters, it would be minimal. As for 2b3s re political grandstanding, that supports my earlier point on how this is a home rule issue. If we had an elected prosecutors & judges appointed without Federal interference, politicians would naturally gravitate to those jobs. Hence, when the community demands more punishment, the “state” officials would listen.

Meanwhile, the debacle in DC tax office continues. Now they’re sending apparently random refund checks to thousands of people, or maybe someone there is covering his tracks by mailing some random checks & some targeted checks to his accomplices.

You're engaging in Bad Commenting 101; to wit: ignoring realities of the American criminal justice system in service of your (well justified) outrage. LL was and is fully aware that Sullivan could have rejected the plea deal. However--(a) that almost never happens; (b) that especially never happens at this late date in a case that encompasses 10 other pleas entered in this court and the Maryland federal trial court; (c) the plea deal is in keeping with federal sentencing guidelines, adjusted for the fact that Walters waived trial and cooperated with federal authorities; (d) rejecting this deal to impose a harsher sentence would open Sullivan to appeal on grounds of equity with other sentences handed down in this case and (e) rejecting the plea deal would risk having to actually try the case, or at least extend litigation, wasting more taxpayer money, possibly millions, to give her a few more years in jail---which is the reason the plea was entered in the first place.

In other words, a rejection of the plea deal was so incomprehensible that LL would have been engaging in journalistic malpractice to even note the possibility!

As for this being 'snarky,' 'ignorant,' and or 'inane'---there's a lot of other posts LL can point you to, but not this one. Thought LL played this one pretty straight.

Here's the math [for the analytically inclined]:

Stealing $48 million over 18 years = Life in Prison.

This woman didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed her child. She stole from children, she stole from old people, she stole from everybody. She stole millions & millions & millions of dollars, over an eighteen year period. She should never see a glimmer of freedom for the rest of her life.

Normally I believe in leniency, but this woman is a career criminal & should be locked up for life. Instead she'll do [about] 12 years - $4 million per year, that'll encourage lots of imitators.

State rights? There will be no local rule or state rights here until we elect the "state" prosecutor & we have a say in the "state" judges with no presidential involvement.