This article first appeared in New English Review.
Why is that a fact worth noting? Let me explain. When I was a DEA agent, I had hundreds of occasions when I was present in a courtroom or grand jury room. Generally, I was a witness for the prosecution in a drug trafficking case. On several occasions, I was also the lead investigating agent in the case- the case agent as we called it. In federal trials, it was the custom for the case agent not only to assist the prosecutor in preparing the case for trial but, with the permission of the judge, to actually sit at the prosecutor's table as the trial proceeded.
I am speaking for myself here (and for many other agents), but it was my practice in these cases not to be present at the time of sentencing. The reasoning was that I considered that to be showing "undue interest" in the sentence. In other words, professionally speaking, it was the investigator's job to find the evidence and present it in court. The verdict and the sentence were the purview of the jury/judge.
That brings me back to Letitia James. This is a woman who shamelessly campaigned for her position as New York Attorney General on the promise that she was going to put Trump in prison, that she was going to go after him and his family, that she was going to go after all of his property in New York. That was disgraceful because, in our system of justice, the job of the prosecutor is to seek truth and justice, to investigate crimes when they occur. It is not to publicly put a target on the back of an individual or individuals and promise to put them out of business and/or in jail before they have ever even been charged with a crime.
In that regard, Ms. James has already shown undue interest in Trump, his family, and his businesses. Now she compounds her sin by appearing in the courtroom staring daggers at defendant Trump. She is not trying the case herself. She has no role in that courtroom. Her presence there in itself was not illegal, but it was very unprofessional. James showed undue interest by her very presence in that courtroom.
Just another indication that this massive prosecutorial assault against Trump is a witchhunt that does not do credit to our system of justice.
6 comments:
You claim to not get into the merits of the case, yet you conclude that this is a "witch hunt".
And just like your comments on his other cases, it's painfully obvious that you don't know even the basic facts of what's going on here. At this point, to still repeat this "witchhunt" narrative is to be the equivalent of Baghdad Bob.
Or better yet, you need to make one of those Hitler parodies of yourself.
Oh, it's you again.
Fouse, do you know of the decision that the judge has already made regarding Trump's business? Do you know the facts as to how that decision was made?
But yeah, the problem is that James made it clear that she was going to go after a known con artist. Sure.
I guess you could call it a witch hunt, but in this case, they caught an actual witch.
Anonymous, Yes I do know that the judge (who is a far-left kook, by the way) has made a number of decisions about TRump's properties. He has determined that Mar A Lago is only worth 18 million, a ridiculous finding.
It is clear that this court and judge-and you- have already convicted TRump.
Even if Trump is guilty of everything you say he is, if you are comfortable with the process and the actions of people like Letitia James, there is something wrong with you.
One more thing, Anonymous:
I don't know what your background is, but as I laid out in the posting, I have a lot of background in law enforcement and trial procedures. I am not a lawyer, but I have a good idea of how our legal procedure is supposed to work-in the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I do not recognize this system of justice that is going after Trump and this goes back to the 2016 presidential campaign. This is not how a democratic system of justice is supposed to work. And this comes from someone who is normally very prosecution-oriented.
The judge is a "far-left kook"? Interesting. What's your evidence for that?
I realize that you have a background in law enforcement, but do you also have one in real estate? Is that how you know that 18 million is a "ridiculous finding"?
But just like your takes on the other trials, where you didn't seem to know about fake electors, what the actual indictment reads, etc., you're missing the most important thing, and that is something that's a clear fact. Trump would inflate his property values when it came to getting loans, and deflate them when it came to paying taxes. And let's not forget where he described his apartment in Trump Tower as being three times its actual size.
But yeah, paying attention to actual numbers and math is the domain of left-wing kooks, I guess.
The fact that you think that this "all goes back to the 2016 presidential campaign" shows that you have been completely sucked in by the Trump Cult propaganda. Just read this guy's history going back to the 1980s. (1970s if you include the time he was sued for violations of the Fair Housing Act.) Look up Trump University and why he had to pay out for that one. Read up on why his sons aren't allowed to run charities in New York (stealing money from kids with cancer - to give you a preview).
Leticia James saying that she was going to "shine a bright light into every dark corner of his (Trump's) real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn" is basically the same as any politician who might have claimed to want to focus on Al Capone.
You have accused me of "already convicting Trump". I'm only stating what's been proven, and what has already been proven is a good enough reason to continue with the process. You continue to put your head in the dirt and only learn the standard right-wing talking points and do absolutely no investigation further than that. (My proof of this, once again, is you claiming that Trump was indicted for "saying the election was stolen" when one only had to read the first two pages of the indictment to know that this was absolutely not the case. This, and the fact that you seem totally unaware of the main point of the judge's ruling.)
And stop acting like this is some objective analysis on your part from someone who is "normally very prosecution-oriented". You've basically convicted Joe Biden in this blog with absolutely nothing to show for it. (But I guess you're unaware of the absolute clown-show that was the impeachment inquiry where the Republicans said that they need the inquiry to find the evidence that they dont' currently have.
You're a partisan hack. Admit it.
Post a Comment