The Jury Talks Back

9/4/2018

Mob Boss Decries Prosecutions

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:21 am

Da boss don’ like wut dey doin’ dere at DOJ:

On today’s episode of Talk to the President Fox and Friends, Andrew Napolitano had bad news for Trump.

More grist for Mueller’s mill.

31 Comments »

  1. Napolitano said there is a total breakdown in communications between the President and the AG. It’s a pattern. Trump frequently has problems with courts, judges, and lawyers. He talks about law and order but he only likes it when it works in his favor, like with defamation laws.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/4/2018 @ 7:40 am

  2. That is like a mob boss.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/4/2018 @ 7:40 am

  3. Sessions was one of the first major GOP politicians to endorse Trump, and Sessions’ endorsement made Trump more viable in the South and in the nation. Sessions wants Trump to succeed, if only so Sessions doesn’t look like an idiot for endorsing Trump. [Note: He already does.]

    Ths, Trump is a fool to fear Sessions because Sessions has always been on Trump’s side. Trump should spend his time fearing Bob Woodward, whose reporting could bring down a second President.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/4/2018 @ 8:38 am

  4. I wonder if it will ever settle to the Trumpistas that this man (Trump) is literally becoming unglued in front of the world.
    I mean, he is ultimately the overseer of the department (DoJ), right?
    He can actually fire the guy (Sessions), right?
    Is Trump that much off a coward?
    Or is there still some vestigial sense of caution that keeps him from self-immolating?
    Also –
    That Trump won’t fire Sessions, and that Sessions carries on, is becoming fun to watch.
    I wonder if Trump is (obliviously) slowly cutting the branch off behind himself and slowly pissing Sessions off to the point where he (Sessions) actually turns on him, with the massive power of the DoJ ready and willing to get him (Trump).
    Thereby confirming what the Derp Staters conspiracies all along, just for vastly different reasons.

    /Fun times

    Comment by TomM — 9/4/2018 @ 12:26 pm

  5. Thereby confirming the Derp Staters conspiracies all along, just for vastly different reasons.

    I’m a terrible proof reader.

    Comment by TomM — 9/4/2018 @ 12:28 pm

  6. I have no idea what will happen but I agree with your evaluation of Trump. “Coming unglued” is a good way to put it.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/4/2018 @ 2:20 pm

  7. After what happened to Ted Stevens, I am skeptical. I hope Hunter and Collinscare convicted if guilty, but the timing is suspicious. Darrell Issa thinks so too. Consider Issa’s accusation that DOJ deliberately delayed this indictment.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/403082-darrell-issa-accuses-us-attorney-of-political-misconduct-for-duncan-hunter

    Issa says, “I don’t know how you make any kind of sense other than he [the prosecutor] sat on it for most of three years and certainly the last year.” Then the indictment is sprung between the nominations and the general election.

    About Stevens, Patterico once said: “There’s an old phrase: ‘Where do I go to get my reputation back?’ More relevant here is this question: Where do we go to get our election back?”

    Odd that decrying the timing of prosecutions is now unethical.

    Comment by Andrew Hyman — 9/5/2018 @ 12:12 am

  8. Who said it is unethical to complain about timing?Complain all you want.

    And apparently this news motivates Trump supporters so maybe it will help the GOP in the midterms. Convincing independents doesn’t seem to be part of the plan.y

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 5:32 am

  9. The problem, of course, is for Trump to complain about his own Justice Department’s legal indictments because they interfere with politics. Trump swore to faithfully execute the laws, not to use the laws to elect Republicans.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 5:35 am

  10. Are you interested in talking about legal issues, Andrew? I think it is a valuable topic to discuss but I get the sense you just want to score points that help Trump. I’m not going to waste my time if that is your goal.

    Trump has done some good things and he should get credit, but he is hurting the legal system by complaining the laws hurt Republicans and by trying to redo the libel laws to help himself instead of society. Undermining the legal system for personal gain is not part of a President’s job description.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 6:29 am

  11. And spare me the “Democrats did it first!” response. Democrats have done plenty of improper and unethical things, including using the Justice Department to help their leaders and Party. I submit that is a big part of why Trump won, but now Trump has thrown that away.

    Who would bother to vote Republican if their concern is a fair system? Who will bother to vote at all? Only the most partisan voters will bother.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 6:33 am

  12. DRJ, no, of course my priority here is not to score points that help Trump. My priority is to show that Darrell Issa has plausibly argued that DOJ deliberately waited until after Hunter was nominated to indict him, because now it’s too late for the GOP to get someone else on the general election ballot. I though this was clear from my other comment above.

    Comment by Andrew Hyman — 9/5/2018 @ 1:16 pm

  13. So now it isn’t enough that Trump wants to politicize the legal system, you also agree with Issa’s claim that the US Attorney should time indictments to make it easier on Republicans?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 1:52 pm

  14. Read Dana’s post about Ben Sasse. The answer to the Democrats politicizing government is not for the Republicans to politicize it, too. That is Trump’s solution but I doubt he understands why that is a bad idea, and he will never understand it.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 2:25 pm

  15. When Trump fires Sessions, I hope he hires Glenn Reynolds. I bet Reynolds would do it and they would be well-suited.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 2:39 pm

  16. I wonder if Trump’s aides see Woodward’s book as an opportunity to push Trump over the edge. He seems like someone who can’t handle stress in a mature way.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 2:47 pm

  17. as tDemiDRJ, please see the link I provided above. Issa’s claim is NOT that the US Attorney should time indictments to make it easier on Republicans? His claim is that DOJ should not have timed the indictment of Hunter to ensure a Democrat would be elected. That’s what DOJ did to Ted Stevens, and if they’re still doing it to EITHER PARTY then they need to stop.

    Comment by Andrew Hyman — 9/5/2018 @ 3:25 pm

  18. DRJ, please see the link I provided above. Issa’s claim is NOT that the US Attorney should time indictments to make it easier on Republicans. His claim is that DOJ should not have timed the indictment of Hunter to ensure a Democrat would be elected. That’s what DOJ did to Ted Stevens, and if they’re still doing it to EITHER PARTY then they need to stop.

    Comment by Andrew Hyman — 9/5/2018 @ 3:26 pm

  19. I read your link. Issa said the indictment prevented the GOP from finding another candidate to run instead of Hunter, thereby making it harder for the GOP to field a candidate who could win. (Although I think Hunter is still ahead in the polls, so maybe it doesn’t matter in that district.)

    Thus, I do not understand the distinction you are making. Isn’t your and Issa’s point that the DOJ shouldn’t hurt the GOP with the timing of indictments? How is it materially different to help the Democrats instead of hurting Republicans?

    Finally, how do you expect the US Attorney to not be political, given that members of Congress run for office every two years and can have contested primaries? In your opinion, should a US Attorney only indict someone immediately after an election?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 3:44 pm

  20. As for Stevens, he was indicted and convicted before his reelection race. The problem in that case wasn’t the politicized timing, it was that the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence so Stevens did not get a fair trial.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 3:49 pm

  21. Stevens was convicted on October 27, 2008 after he had already been nominated by the GOP. After his conviction, it was impossible to replace Stevens on the ballot, and in November 2008 he was defeated. I believe this fraudulent prosecution of Stevens was deliberately timed so that there would be no time after his conviction to replace him on the ballot.

    The situation with Hunter was not exactly the same. I am not saying that Hunter is innocent or that he should not be convicted. I am simply saying that Issa has made a credible accusation that the indictment and trial of Hunter have been DELIBERATELY DELAYED FOR POLITICAL PURPUSES TO SWING AN ELECTION TO THE OPPOSING PARTY. This has not been done in exactly the same day as DOJ screwed the GOP in the case of Stevens. And it may turn out that Hunter is re-elected. But that would not excuse any deliberate attempt by DOJ to delay prosecution to cause maximum harm to the GOP.

    It’s generally fine if a U.S. attorney indicts someone based on serious and credible evidence between nomination and general election, UNLESS the U.S. attorney could have done so earlier but deliberately delayed in order to alter the party balance in Congress.

    Comment by Andrew Hyman — 9/5/2018 @ 5:30 pm

  22. Stevens was indicted in July 2008 and the GOP primary election was August 26, 2008. Alaskan Republicans picked Stevens, knowing he was under indictment.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 6:19 pm

  23. As for Hunter, you seem to think the charges against him are not based on evidence or were made with an improper political motive.

    Hunter is innocent until proven guilty but that doesn’t mean the charges are bogus or there is no evidence of guilt. In addition, what is your basis for thinking the US Attorney had a political motive?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 6:22 pm

  24. Stevens was convicted after being nominated. Had he been indicted earlier, he would have been convicted before the nomination, and thus Alaska GOP voters would have nominated someone else. Why is this so difficult to understand?

    As for Hunter, I already said above “I am not saying that Hunter is innocent or that he should not be convicted.” My basis for suspecting that Hunter’s prosecutors had a political motive in delaying the indictment until it was too late for the GOP to replace him with someone else is Issa’s allegation, plus the Stevens experience.

    Comment by Andrew Hyman — 9/5/2018 @ 7:44 pm

  25. Why is this so difficult to understand?

    I can ask you the same thing. Are you now claiming prosecutors must indict and complete trials before the primary?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 8:03 pm

  26. Darrell Issa may have an agenda, too.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/5/2018 @ 8:22 pm

  27. Of course I’m not claiming prosecutors must indict and complete trials before the primary. I’m claiming that prosecutors must not deliberately stall and delay for the purpose of having indictment or trial when it’s too late to switch candidates. I’ve said this here several times.

    Comment by Andrew Hyman — 9/5/2018 @ 10:05 pm

  28. Saying it does not mean it is true. How do you know that is what happened?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/6/2018 @ 2:10 am

  29. I don’t know it is true. I only know there is reason to suspect, based on what happened to Ted Stevens, and based on the link I gave regarding Darrell Issa.

    Comment by Andrew Hyman — 9/6/2018 @ 2:56 am

  30. They aren’t even the same prosecutors — there are different prosecutors in the Collins, Hunter, and Stevens cases — so you are tarring all US Attorneys because of what some prosecutors did years ago. (Targeting a politician by using improper tactics is not the same as improper timing, but I give up on asking you to see that.)

    But it is possible that people in power have improper motives, including the prosecutors, the defendants, and Issa (and, for that matter, Trump). The more power, the more corruption there can be. Who has more power here, prosecutors or Congressmen?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/6/2018 @ 7:09 am

  31. If your answer is the prosecutors have more power because they can change peoples’ lives, then I submit you have tunnel vision. Members of Congress have tremendous power and are often allowed to do things that normal people would never be allowed to do. Even prosecutors are leery of bringing charges unless they have strong cases, which is why it can take longer to indict politicians.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/6/2018 @ 7:12 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview


Powered by WordPress.