[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Dag Nabbit [@Lamplighter1630](/creator/twitter/Lamplighter1630) on x 7525 followers Created: 2025-07-18 22:49:02 UTC Aidan TB Kearney’s criminal defense co-counsel Mark Bederow claims that it’s rare for a defendant in federal court to receive a fully pre-negotiated sentence if they’re cooperating as informants, mostly because the Feds don’t want to agree to a sweetheart sentence like the one Leslie received BEFORE they assess the quality of her potential cooperation. If Leslie had any meaningful info for the Feds, the reasoning goes, they would wait to see how good her stuff was before agreeing to giving her no prison time and no fines. But that didn’t happen here. Leslie got the sweetheart deal up front, leading Bederow to infer that the whole case is a nothing burger, and that the super light sentence simply reflects the US Attorney’s desire to tie up the whole minor kerfuffle with a bow and file it in a box somewhere, never to be heard from again. That’s certainly possible. But it’s important to remember that under any possible scenario, Leslie is a bit player in the drama. She’s not your typical cooperating witness or confidential informant. She’s not a capo in a mafia family who wants to sing to avoid major jail time. She’s not an exec at a health care company who wants to spill the beans about the rampant Medicare fraud at her firm. No, Leslie’s just a randomly chosen private citizen with no criminal record who found herself inside a closed chamber, hearing all sorts of secret information about the targets and subjects of federal investigations. Information that lots of other people REALLY wanted to know because of their own criminal exposure. But Leslie herself only had loose lips, not major involvement in federal crimes. She squawked yes, but her culpability is limited. What the Feds almost certainly want to know is: WHO got the info she leaked and HOW did they use it? Maybe it’s a nothing burger, but if so, Leslie got an astonishingly light sentence for someone who had nothing important to proffer to federal prosecutor Anne Paruti, Chief of the major crimes unit (and what on earth is the chief of the major crimes unit doing as the lead prosecutor on a “nothing burger” case like Leslie’s?). If Leslie had nothing important to sing about, as Bederow implies, why would they take care of her at all? The Feds aren’t famous for mercy. Why wouldn’t they have just done the normal thing: accept her guilty plea and simply *suggest* to the judge a sentence on the lighter end of the guidelines, say like 6-18 months? Jessica Leslie got ZERO prison time and ZERO fines. For nothing in return? I doubt that very much. Far more likely is that the reason Leslie got a locked-in sweetheart sentence is because she provided significant information about a completely new set of Federal targets and subjects, unrelated to the Feds’ original investigation into corruption in Norfolk County. Assume Leslie’s leaks gave no material benefit to the targets and subjects of that Fed investigation, in this case the Norfolk DA, the Canton police, and the @MassStatePolice. If, instead, the leaks benefited an outside party, like Karen Read (who was never the subject/target of the original Fed investigation) then Leslie’s actions, though criminal, did not materially compromise Levy’s investigation. Vis a vis the Fed investigation into Norfolk County, Leslie’s leaks probably did no harm. But a fully pre-negotiated sentence as part of Leslie’s plea agreement, which severely limits the discretion available to federal Judge Talwani (which judges don’t stand for unless there’s a very good reason for it) strongly suggests that the Feds are looking in a new direction, at new targets based on what Leslie told them about what she leaked, who ultimately received the leaks, and how the recipient used that secret information. I love the lawyers on Twitter, I really do, but full disclosure should have prompted Bederow to note in his post below that he represents Aidan Kearney in a criminal case with inextricably linked ties to Jessica Leslie’s federal grand jury.  XXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [stocks defense](/topic/stocks-defense) [dag](/topic/dag) [Post Link](https://x.com/Lamplighter1630/status/1946341471839498710)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Dag Nabbit @Lamplighter1630 on x 7525 followers
Created: 2025-07-18 22:49:02 UTC
Aidan TB Kearney’s criminal defense co-counsel Mark Bederow claims that it’s rare for a defendant in federal court to receive a fully pre-negotiated sentence if they’re cooperating as informants, mostly because the Feds don’t want to agree to a sweetheart sentence like the one Leslie received BEFORE they assess the quality of her potential cooperation.
If Leslie had any meaningful info for the Feds, the reasoning goes, they would wait to see how good her stuff was before agreeing to giving her no prison time and no fines.
But that didn’t happen here. Leslie got the sweetheart deal up front, leading Bederow to infer that the whole case is a nothing burger, and that the super light sentence simply reflects the US Attorney’s desire to tie up the whole minor kerfuffle with a bow and file it in a box somewhere, never to be heard from again.
That’s certainly possible. But it’s important to remember that under any possible scenario, Leslie is a bit player in the drama. She’s not your typical cooperating witness or confidential informant. She’s not a capo in a mafia family who wants to sing to avoid major jail time. She’s not an exec at a health care company who wants to spill the beans about the rampant Medicare fraud at her firm.
No, Leslie’s just a randomly chosen private citizen with no criminal record who found herself inside a closed chamber, hearing all sorts of secret information about the targets and subjects of federal investigations. Information that lots of other people REALLY wanted to know because of their own criminal exposure. But Leslie herself only had loose lips, not major involvement in federal crimes.
She squawked yes, but her culpability is limited. What the Feds almost certainly want to know is: WHO got the info she leaked and HOW did they use it?
Maybe it’s a nothing burger, but if so, Leslie got an astonishingly light sentence for someone who had nothing important to proffer to federal prosecutor Anne Paruti, Chief of the major crimes unit (and what on earth is the chief of the major crimes unit doing as the lead prosecutor on a “nothing burger” case like Leslie’s?).
If Leslie had nothing important to sing about, as Bederow implies, why would they take care of her at all? The Feds aren’t famous for mercy. Why wouldn’t they have just done the normal thing: accept her guilty plea and simply suggest to the judge a sentence on the lighter end of the guidelines, say like 6-18 months? Jessica Leslie got ZERO prison time and ZERO fines. For nothing in return? I doubt that very much.
Far more likely is that the reason Leslie got a locked-in sweetheart sentence is because she provided significant information about a completely new set of Federal targets and subjects, unrelated to the Feds’ original investigation into corruption in Norfolk County.
Assume Leslie’s leaks gave no material benefit to the targets and subjects of that Fed investigation, in this case the Norfolk DA, the Canton police, and the @MassStatePolice. If, instead, the leaks benefited an outside party, like Karen Read (who was never the subject/target of the original Fed investigation) then Leslie’s actions, though criminal, did not materially compromise Levy’s investigation.
Vis a vis the Fed investigation into Norfolk County, Leslie’s leaks probably did no harm. But a fully pre-negotiated sentence as part of Leslie’s plea agreement, which severely limits the discretion available to federal Judge Talwani (which judges don’t stand for unless there’s a very good reason for it) strongly suggests that the Feds are looking in a new direction, at new targets based on what Leslie told them about what she leaked, who ultimately received the leaks, and how the recipient used that secret information.
I love the lawyers on Twitter, I really do, but full disclosure should have prompted Bederow to note in his post below that he represents Aidan Kearney in a criminal case with inextricably linked ties to Jessica Leslie’s federal grand jury.
XXXXXX engagements
Related Topics stocks defense dag