Oops, back you go
A judge has revoked Martin Shkreli’s bail. I guess offering to pay people to grab Hillary Clinton’s hair wasn’t such a good idea after all.
A federal judge on Wednesday revoked the $5 million bail of Martin Shkreli, the infamous former hedge fund manager convicted of defrauding investors, after prosecutors complained that his out-of-court antics posed a danger to the community.
While awaiting sentencing, Shkreli has harassed women online, prosecutors argued, and even offered his Facebook followers $5,000 to grab a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair during her book tour.
Those aren’t “antics.” Those people who punched a woman in the face and knocked her down at a discussion on gender weren’t performing “antics” and neither was Martin Shkreli. Threats and intimidation are not “antics.”
Shkreli, who faces up to 20 years in prison for securities fraud, apologized in writing, saying that he did not expect anyone to take his online comments seriously, and his attorneys pleaded with the judge Wednesday to give him another chance.
“The fact that he continues to remain unaware of the inappropriateness of his actions or words demonstrates to me that he may be creating ongoing risk to the community,” said U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, in revoking his bond.
His actions were threatening, intimidating, and harassing. “Inappropriate” is a mild word for that.
“This is a solicitation of assault. That is not protected by the First Amendment.”
There you go. That’s how to say it.
Shkreli, wearing a lavender button-down shirt and slacks, was taken into custody immediately after the hour-long hearing. He did not appear to react at the judge’s decision though he appeared more nervous than when he entered court and refused to ride the elevator with one reporter because they were “fake news.” He will be sent to a maximum-security prison until his sentencing hearing in January.
I think he’s more fake news than the reporters are.
Shkreli’s lawyers compared his online comments to the political humor of Kathy Griffin, who once held up a photograph of a faux bloody head of President Trump. They also compared him to Trump himself. During the campaign, Trump used “political hyperbole,” Shkreli’s attorneys said, when he said that Clinton, his Democratic opponent, would abolish the Second Amendment if elected. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know,” Trump said.
“He did not hold up the severed head of the president of the United States like Kathy Griffin,” Brafman said.
But prosecutors argued that Shkreli already had been given plenty of opportunities to act appropriately. His posts about Hillary Clinton and female journalists show an “escalating pattern of violence against women that is incredibly disturbing,” Jacquelyn Kasulis, the lead prosecutor said. “It is clear that he is reckless. He knew exactly what he was doing. He has to go in. … He doesn’t respect the rule of law.”
And it’s not as if nobody ever acts on threats against women.
Matsumoto appeared particularly concerned that one of Shkreli’s Facebook followers could take his offer of $5,000 for a strand of Clinton’s hair seriously. Shkreli said he wanted the hair — with a follicle — to compare Clinton’s DNA to a sample he already had. His attorneys said the post was satire and could not be taken seriously.
“What is funny about that,” a visibly frustrated Matsumoto said. “He doesn’t know who his followers are. He doesn’t know if someone is going to take his offer seriously. … He is soliciting an assault on another person for $5,000.”
And it’s not as if nobody ever acts on threats against women. It’s really not.
Kathy Griffin held up the severed head of the president of the United States? No wonder they fired her.
Not offering a diagnosis here — not even tentatively — but his behavior smacks of antisocial personality disorder. I.e., being a sociopath. Indications include:
* Disregard for right and wrong
* Persistent lying or deceit to exploit others
* Being callous, cynical and disrespectful of others
* Arrogance, a sense of superiority and being extremely opinionated
* Recurring problems with the law, including criminal behavior
* Repeatedly violating the rights of others through intimidation and dishonesty
* Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead
* Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others
* Unnecessary risk-taking or dangerous behavior with no regard for the safety of self or others
* Failure to consider the negative consequences of behavior or learn from them
* Being consistently irresponsible and repeatedly failing to fulfill work or financial obligations
Note that I just copy-pasted the list from the Mayo Clinic’s web site, and I deleted the ones that don’t seem to be particularly attested by his public behavior. I only deleted three.
One thinks of sociopaths as criminal geniuses — and at the very least as self-preserving. What’s surprising is how often they’re rampantly self-destructive. Society tends to punish non-conformists and rule-breakers, often severely. Criminal masterminds conform and follow rules, except when they don’t, and when they don’t they’re sly about it. But sociopaths also fall on a bell curve, and the left side of it feels no responsibility to follow rules, but is also too stupid to avoid consequences. (In fact many of them seem to get a thrill out of their risky behavior.)
My therapist mentioned two curious examples. One was a person who set fires just to sit back and watch the people scurry around, the fire department come, and all the excitement. He was caught every time, because the police would find him nearby watching the fun, all but eating popcorn in a lawn chair.
The other was actually a wolf, and she only theorized it was a sociopath. It continually attempted to eat before others who were higher in the pecking order. They growled, barked, and generally bit the shit out of him, but he wouldn’t stop transgressing the hierarchy. Finally they drove him out of the pack, and he probably soon died out on his own. I didn’t see the “sociopath” in the story, but she said, “He didn’t think the rules applied to him; but he was too stupid to fake it.”
Now why would that story come to mind, upon hearing about a guy who solicits people to assault a secret service protectee while he was out on bail?
While what Kathy Griffin did could be seen as inappropriate, she did not tell people to go out and behead the president, so it isn’t quite the same thing. And she got for it.
Shkreli actually suggested assault.
I think the most important point here is that Shkreli is not being convicted of a crime for his statements. He was convicted of a different crime, which put the judge in a position to decide whether he should be trusted to behave responsibly while awaiting sentencing.
If Kathy Griffin had done her photo while awaiting sentencing for another crime, then it might be a comparable situation. But the rights of a convicted felon awaiting sentencing are not as broad as those of a free citizen.
Unless, of course, they’re elected presidents. Then rules no longer apply, and it’s not even necessary to be a criminal genius. The only qualification needed is hating the right people.
Bjarte – agreed. Trump got there despite being near rock bottom, mentally, riding the tide of resentment of authoritarian followers looking for a führer.
Disclaimer: I’m quite positive Trump has narcissistic personality disorder. I’m not certain whether he is also a sociopath: the two disorders DO occur together; but they also have very similar symptoms and can be mistaken for each other. Doesn’t really affect your point though.
Not really the point, but the real problem with Trump’s “Second Amendment” statement (if you ask me) wasn’t that he might have misrepresented Clinton’s position. It was that Trump, you know… suggested that people who care about guns (“Second Amendnent people”) could possibly see their way to, you know, solving the problem by shooting her.