Ask HN: What do you think of Ross Ulbricht?
"The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ulbricht commissioned at least five murders in the course of protecting Silk Road's anonymity, a finding that Ulbricht does not challenge in this appeal. Ulbricht does not mention his orders for the commission of those murders until his reply brief. Even there, he does not argue that the district court erred in concluding that he deliberately commissioned those murders; rather, he claims instead only that the murders did not support a life sentence because they did not actually take place. But in evaluating Ulbricht's character and dangerousness, the most relevant points are that he wanted the murders to be committed, he paid for them, and he believed that they had been carried out. The fact that his hired assassin may have defrauded him does not reflect positively on Ulbricht's character. Commissioning the murders significantly justified the life sentence."
Given that Ross, his lawyers, and his mother didn't deny that Ulbricht commissioned the murders in Ross' post-conviction and pre-sentencing letter [3], his appeal [1], nor the recent push for a pardon, I lean towards Ross having commissioned the murders.
[1] Appeals court decision with a good summary of everything: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-ulbricht-10
[2] District court judge's denial of request to preclude evidence of murder-for-hire: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--14-cr-00068/USA_v._Ulbricht/142/
[3] Ulbricht's post-conviction and pre-sentencing letter to the judge: https://freeross.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Ross_Letter_to_Judge_05-22-2015.pdf#page=2
[4] Original indictment: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/2015/03/25/US v. Ross Ulbricht Indictment.pdf
7 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 29.7 ms ] threadBright chap, but misguided, might be a view that I'd be happy to defend.
I would not, though, want to leap on to an uninformed bandwagon with respect to his alleged conspiracy to murder, or with respect to any campaign for presidential pardon.
Old-fashioned as I am, I would prefer any such deliberations and rulings to be the domain of the judiciary and legal systems, rather than of random public opinion.
If trump wants to be generous, let him look at Snowden, Assange and Manning. As it is, I don't believe any of them (Ulbricht included) were or will be given any consideration. If there's nothing obviously in it for trump, trump won't do it.
Given that the those convicted of an actual slaughter that was a war crime have been pardoned by Trump, someone whose sentence took into account uncharged involvement in murder for hire schemes that did not culminate in actual killing is kind of small potatoes.
> If trump wants to be generous, let him look at Snowden, Assange and Manning.
Assange makes sense for purely corrupt reasons so has a better chance than the others, but all three would fit his lame-duck feces-throwing style pretty well.
(Which isn't to say I don't see good arguments for pardoning Snowden fairly generally and Manning more selectively; I just don't think those good arguments are in any way relevant to Trump’s likely behavior.)
One of the few really interesting powers of the US president is the (mass) pardon. Carter pardoned everyone who skipped the Vietnam draft.
If Trump wanted to improve his legacy (and throw some feces on the way out), he could mass pardon all non-violent federal Canabis offenderd or even add other drugs to that list. President would be on his side, it would be very popular with anyone young and 30 states have legalised it already so why not right a moral wrong?