NMC – If Zach Scruggs quilty plea is set aside, “we’ll see a really scary superseading indictment”

I can understand arguments that the Minor case may have an impact, because there is no clear nexus between what Judge Lackey was being asked to decide and federal funds. On the other hand, I can’t imagine how the issue about Tony Farese has any impact, because Zach Scruggs clearly had separate independent counsel long before entering the plea. And Skilling provides no comfort in a case involving a straight-up bribe.

But then there’s this: Judge Biggers will be deciding this issue. And apparently, Zach Scruggs’s counsel will be some of the same folks present at his guilty plea. I’m not sure I’d want to appear before that particular judge saying “My client is innocent!” after doing a guilty plea for that client. And one also wonders whether reopening this will work out– if the plea is set aside, I’d assume we’ll see a really scary superseading indictment. But I’m guessing we won’t be going there…