This article first appeared in New English Review.
In 1995, I retired from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) after a 27-year-career in law enforcement, which included 3 years as a US Army MP, 3 years as a US Customs agent, and 22 years as a DEA agent. I was proud to be a DEA agent, and though the DOJ always had a political tint to it due to the attorney general being a presidential appointment, I always had faith in its integrity. While my pride as a former DEA agent remains unchanged, I cannot say the same for the Justice Department I served for 22 years. In addition, I am appalled by what I see in state and local courts in places like New York and many others.
We are certainly living in an era where our law enforcement has been weaponized, specifically by the Democrat party. The 2016 presidential campaign made it painfully obvious with the FBI/DOJ whitewashing of Hillary Clinton's transgressions while pursuing candidate Donald Trump, using the Steele dossier, the Russian interference hoax, the FISA warrants against members of the Trump campaign, and the prosecution of General Michael Flynn. And it was all done not by rank-and-file agents in the field, but rather by a top-level cabal in FBI Hqs.
Now we have the conviction of Trump in a New York State court. In addition to DA Alvin Bragg, the prosecution team included Matthew Colangelo, who left his number 3 position in Merrick Garland's DOJ to join the Bragg team and, specifically, his prosecutorial pursuit of Trump. Despite all denials, this shows me there was collusion between the New York City DA's office and the DOJ, if not the White House itself. I should state at this juncture that while I did have considerable experience working with the US Attorney's offices in the Southern District and Eastern District of New York, I had no experience with the NYC DA's office.
I won't bother going through all the aspects of the Trump trial, which to me, represent reversible errors. Fox News has covered them in great detail though they are ignored by the other main media outlets-to their shame. I will say this, however: While I am not an attorney, my law enforcement experience includes countless times testifying in court and as lead agent, assisting prosecutors in trials. That means sitting at the prosecutor's table throughout the trial process. In my view, Trump did not get a fair trial.
That concerns me, not because I blindly side with Trump, but because I see great damage to our system of justice. Like virtually every other DEA agent, I put my share of drug traffickers in prison. I make no apologies for any of them, but I will state, however, that each and everyone received due process and a fair trial. Unlike the farce in New York, our federal drug charges under Title 21 of the US Code were almost always straightforward. They usually centered around manufacture, importation, and/or possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute as well as conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. (As a federal agency, simple possession and/or use of drugs was not our concern.) We also did financial investigations and RICO cases, which are more complex conspiracy investigations.
Our prosecutors in the US Attorney's office (DOJ) did not magically take old misdemeanors whose statute of limitations had expired and combine them with some other law to create a felony-as was done against Trump in New York. Yes, we put characters like Michael Cohen on the stand-informers or co-conspirators who had decided to cooperate to reduce their sentences. But in those cases, everything they said was corroborated. We never expected a jury to take the uncorroborated word of informants or co-conspirators.
As for federal judges, there are those who are more sympathetic to the defense or the prosecution, and we were happy to have a conservative judge assigned to our case as opposed to a liberal one, but we never expected a judge to deny fundamental fairness to a defendant. I am frankly appalled at the way Judge Juan Merchan conducted the trial. This case cries out for a reversal, but it may take the US Supreme Court to make that happen.
While I feel for Trump in this instance, I am sadder about what is happening to our justice system. This is not the justice system that I knew and worked under. I don't even recognize this system of justice. This weaponization of our justice system for political purposes is taking root, and if it is not reversed soon, it will become entrenched. If Trump becomes president again, I don't want to see this all repeated against the Democrats. I want to see it cleaned up and these abuses not be repeated. This is not to suggest that Trump, Biden, or any other politician should be above the law, but revenge should not be a factor in bringing charges.
I say all this not as a Republican (I am independent), a Trump supporter (I have mixed feelings), or as a conservative. I say it as someone who spent almost 30 years in law enforcement with all the courtroom experience that implies. It's not just Trump who is in trouble. Our country is in trouble. I am very troubled not just by what is happening to the Justice Department, but also by what I am seeing in DA offices in places like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and other cities. We have enjoyed the greatest country in the world, but if we lose our justice system, it isn't worth a dime. From where I sit, it is being badly corrupted, both at the state and federal level. We need to take corrective action, and it starts at the ballot box.
23 comments:
More unhinged lunacy based on half-truths, lies, and right-wing propaganda.
Why should any other news outlet go over the supposed "errors" that are covered by Fox? The same outlet where their people were texting each other that Trump's claims of election fraud were nonsense but then went on television and repeated those same claims? (Do you even know why they had to get rid of Tucker Carlson?) Cable news is a garbage heap and Fox is the fetid, rotting bag of dog crap at the very bottom of it all. How any rational person could turn on that propaganda network and think "This is how I become informed" is beyond me. (And don't give me the "WhataboutCNN/MSNBC/etc" because they also suck just in different ways.)
If Democrats are weaponizing the DOJ against Republicans, then why is the DOJ going after Menendez, Cuellar, and Bush? Three democrats! And let's not forget that Hunter Biden's trial is getting underway. Maybe the DOJ is just going after criminals, and a guy like Trump, with a history of legal problems and dishonest behavior, actually did crimes? My God, just take three seconds to think through your talking points, man.
As I stated in the other post, there might be some legitimate criticism of how this case was handled. But your description of it is nonsense. Thankfully the early polls show that most Americans agree that he got a fair trial and the verdict was correct. (And most notably, Independents who were polled think so - you know, actual independents, not Republicans in independents clothing such as yourself.)
I try not to be too certain of anything, but I am fairly certain that if this was a Democrat in Trump's position, and every other detail was exactly the same, you wouldn't be saying any of this at all. (Still waiting on the "evidence" that Joe Biden committed an impeachable offense - or even for somebody to name a specific crime that he actually did.)
You asked for one concrete point where Trump was denied due process, and I gave you several. Rather than counter each point, you just revert to your emotional insults. It's really a waste of time debating you.
I refuted all of your points. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you somehow just missed them. Go have another look on that post.
And to say that I only resorted to emotional insults, even with my last comment, is a pretty ridiculous generalization as I brought up several salient points.
I reread it and I still don't see your refutations of my points (which were on a different post thread).
Yes, grandpa, that's what I'm saying. That's why I said to have another look at "that post", which would be a different post from this post.
To be as clear as possible, I wrote a refutatiion, point by point, on the post where you gave me some "evidence".
Just tell me exactly where you refuted these points, point by point, Grandson. Because I don't see it anywhere.
1 Alvin Bragg, the DA, campaigned on a promise to get Trump.
2- He took a case of alleged false business records ("legal expenses") dating back to 2017 and falling under the statute of limitations and turned them magically into felonies by linking them to the "underlying crime", (to affect the presidential campaign). Previously, the DOJ had looked at it and declined to file charges. Bragg's own office was not interested in filing charges until Trump declared he was going to run for president. By the way, any charges relating to the presidential campaign would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Govt not the NY City DA's Office.
3 Matthew Colangelo was the number 3 official in the Biden DOJ. He left to join Bragg's office, specifically the Trump case. He participated in the trial itself. Was that all a coincidence?
4 The judge refused to allow the former head of the FEC to testify for the defense on campaign law.
5 The instructions the judge gave to the jury were bizarre to say the least. He instructed the jury that to convict on each of the 34 counts, they must find that they were connected to one of three "underlying charges". Incredibly, he told them that even if they did not agree unanimously on any of the three charges, if there were a total of 12, that would be considered "unanimous". Wow. I'm not a constitutional expert, but I believe the 6th Amendment requires jury votes (in criminal trials) to be unanimous on all issues. In addition, the three choices were first disclosed in the judge's jury instructions-after the defense had made their final argument. A defendant is entitled to know the charges against him prior to the start of the trial. The defense has the right to properly prepare their case and their arguments.
6 The press conference by DeNiro and DNC officials in front of the courthouse while the trial was still in progress can certainly be interpreted as an attempt to influence the jury to convict. It was inappropriate to say the least.
Can you check the comments on that post again? I'd rather not rewrite it, but maybe I'll be more succinct on a second pass.
You better try again because I see no refutations to my points. Comments about Sean Hannity and cults don't answer my points.
I think that I figured out the problem. My response was too long. Here's take two, broken into two comments:
1. Bragg campaigning on "getting Trump".
I'm actually glad that I got a chance to look at this one closer. My original comment was "So what?" as it has nothing to do with whether Trump got due process or not. Also, are you really trying to tell me that DAs don't ever set their sights on specific criminals?
But when I look into it, I see that this is just another regurgitated and misleading talking point. The way you say it, it's like he had billboards saying "I'm going to get Trump". From what I can find, he simply said that he would continue the investigations against Trump that were already underway. (Could you please for once at least look into Trump's long background of legal troubles that go back to the days when he was still calling himself a Democrat?)
And I found this statement from him: "I don’t know where this investigation will go. I don’t want to prejudge it. But, these types of investigations — white-collar investigations — I’ve been involved with for years, both doing them myself and also supervising them..."
So, even if this point was accurate, which it doesn't seem to be, it's a nothing sandwich.
2. You have a few points here. Your best point is there though when it comes to the statute of limitations. From what I read, New York law "stops the clock" when the defendant is living out of state, as Trump was doing.
As for why the DOJ didn't pursue it, they ended their probe in July of 2019. Gee, who was president back then? Nothing fishy going on there, huh?
And "magically turning them into felonies"? Look, if you want to make a layman's case that legal jargon can get you wherever you want to go, then that's fine. But that's a silly oversimplification that neither I nor you are qualified to make such broad assertions about.
And part two...
3. As for Colangelo leaving to help with the Trump case - so what? I didn't bother to look into this one to see if it's yet another misleading statement because even if it's absolutely true and absolutely not a coincidence, it still tells us nothing about whether Trump got proper due process.
4. Your statement about the judge refusing the former FEC head to testify is another misleading statement. I don't know if you're trying to deceive me and your readers or you're just regurgitating propaganda, but the truth is much more complicated. The simple fact of the matter is that he WAS allowed to testify. What he wasn't allowed to do was give his opinions on whether Trump broke the laws or how the laws should be applied. When he couldn't do that, he declined to testify. So, saying he "wasn't allowed" isn't even a half truth.
5. Another misleading statement, and all I had to do was Google what you wrote to see that's a popular one making the rounds in right-wing media. Per the AP
"Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.
For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was."
I'm not a Constitutional scholar either, but I understand that the crime he's being charged with is lying on his records in order to conceal another crime. So, they have to be unanimous that he lied on his records. It's a bit confusing, but what you wrote distorts the issue.
6. Give me a break with the press conference. What about all of the MAGA Republicans and their press conferences? Were they not trying to swing the jury too? This is also a hand full of nothing.
So, in review:
1. A distortion of what happened but even if 100% true is still not evidence that Trump didn't get due process.
2. You may have a point on the statute of limitations, but you might not. This is your strongest argument but still doesn't call for a "Oh where or where has our justice system gone?" bit of pearl-clutching.
3. Another big "so what"?
4. Untrue.
5. Untrue.
6. Come on.
I found this to be a pretty balanced article over at Vox. The conclusion is basically "there are some legitimate issues to discuss but Trump is hardly a victim" which I think hits the nail on the head.
https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trump-trial-verdict-criticisms-wrongly-convicted
I will take these one at a time:
Bragg: First of all, it is highly unprofessional for a DA candidate to campaign on the pledge to nail a specific person. I can see it if the target is Pablo Escobar or Al Capone, but your litany of previous Trump scandals hardly compares. The DA's job is to prosecute crimes as they occur not look for things to charge an individual with. Bragg's position is "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."
The New York AG, Letitia James also campaigned on the promise to nail Trump.
The point about Colangelo is that it suggests complicity of the DOJ, and by extension, the WH in supporting a state case in NY state court. That's not to say that all federal-state collaboration is illegitimate. I have testified in state courts as well as federal courts, but the Colangelo case is highly suspicious. Is that a legal point? No.
"Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.
For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was."
I'm not a Constitutional scholar either, but I understand that the crime he's being charged with is lying on his records in order to conceal another crime. So, they have to be unanimous that he lied on his records. It's a bit confusing, but what you wrote distorts the issue."
In the appeal, the defense is going to argue that under the 6th amendment, the jury verdict must be unanimous. Certainly as to conviction, but in all issues before the jury? That is the question.
"Your statement about the judge refusing the former FEC head to testify is another misleading statement. I don't know if you're trying to deceive me and your readers or you're just regurgitating propaganda, but the truth is much more complicated. The simple fact of the matter is that he WAS allowed to testify. What he wasn't allowed to do was give his opinions on whether Trump broke the laws or how the laws should be applied. When he couldn't do that, he declined to testify. So, saying he "wasn't allowed" isn't even a half truth."
Interesting. That raises another question: Under the law, expert witnesses are permitted to give their opinions on issues they testify about based on their expertise. Would not the former SEC head be considered an expert witness on this issue? I testified several times as an expert witness in federal court regarding drugs and trafficking, and was allowed to give my opinion. Under federal procedure to be considered an expert witness, there are a series of questions and answers from the prosecution and defense to the witness and then the judge will decide if the person is an expert witness.
The press conference is not a handful of nothing. Whether that in itself would lead to a reversal is doubtful, but the point is that while it wasn't illegal in itself, it was highly improper-even more so for the DNC officials to take part.
"Your statement about the judge refusing the former FEC head to testify is another misleading statement. I don't know if you're trying to deceive me and your readers or you're just regurgitating propaganda, but the truth is much more complicated. The simple fact of the matter is that he WAS allowed to testify. What he wasn't allowed to do was give his opinions on whether Trump broke the laws or how the laws should be applied. When he couldn't do that, he declined to testify. So, saying he "wasn't allowed" isn't even a half truth."
Interesting. That raises another question: Under the law, expert witnesses are permitted to give their opinions on issues they testify about based on their expertise. Would not the former SEC head be considered an expert witness on this issue? I testified several times as an expert witness in federal court regarding drugs and trafficking, and was allowed to give my opinion. Under federal procedure to be considered an expert witness, there are a series of questions and answers from the prosecution and defense to the witness and then the judge will decide if the person is an expert witness.
The NY State statute of limitations law is interesting. Under federal law, the statute of limitations stops ticking once the subject becomes a fugitive from the law. If Vox is correct on this point, the NY law strikes me as unfair.
The press conference (cont). Think about it: It is one thing for people to hold a press conference outside a courthouse arguing for acquittal, and quite another to be arguing for conviction-even obliquely.
By the same token, I would caution Fox News to be cautious in how they cover the Hunter Biden trial. He is also entitled to a fair trial.
Interesting that you quote a progressive source. Even though their conclusion is favorable to the prosecution, I still come away uncomfortable after reading their coverage of the points. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, which can lead a prosecutor to decline prosecution for a variety of reasons. I seriously doubt the average person would have been hit with these very imaginative charges. In addition, isn't it interesting how all these cases were filed after Trump announced he was running for reelection? Why didn't this whole process begin after he was no longer president?
I'll try to be brief:
Bragg - Why do you keep saying this talking point that Bragg campaigned on a promise to nail Trump? It's a moot point because he didn't do it. (I'm willing to see some actual evidence that he did, but this is becoming one of those "repeat the lie often enough..." deals.)
Colangelo - You admit it's not a legal point, so again, nothing to see here.
The jury being unanimous - I agree that this can probably be scrutinized, but it's not the nefarious thing that you originally made it out to be. There's an appeals process, no? Is Trump being denied that?
FEC Commissioner - A bit more on that is that the judge said that if the defense got to bring on their own "expert" to argue in favor of Trump, then the prosecution would be able to do so as well, leading to a "battle of the experts" that would only confuse the jury (as who are they to determine who's the better expert?) Also, there seems to be a rule about expert witnesses not being allowed to interpret the law.
Statute of limitations - I conceded that there might be something here. That's for bigger law-heads than you or I to determine.
The press conference - do you also object to the Republicans doing the same thing at this trial? I'm fine with being against it no matter who. Otherwise, it's silly to complain about one and not the other.
"I seriously doubt the average person would have been hit with these very imaginative charges."
What average person could even attempt what Trump did? This is a silly point.
As for the timing of all this, it seems beyond the point to me as well. I think that the biggest point that you need to seriously consider is that the jury deemed him guilty of all charges. The defense got to take part in selecting them. One of them even admitted to getting all their news from Trump's social media platform.
Sometimes the most simple explanation is the best one. Maybe he was found guilty of a crime because he's guilty of a crime.
Look, if your whole point was "there seems to be some discrepancies in this trial, and we should withhold judgement until the appeal" then I wouldn't have enough to disagree with you. But this whole "justice is dead" (not your exact words, but the gist) thing isn't rooted in reality.
"I'll try to be brief" (Famous last words.)
"Also, there seems to be a rule about expert witnesses not being allowed to interpret the law."
That sounds reasonable to me, but here we have a case where the state (NY) is interpreting federal election law. I would think that a former commissioner of the FEC would be able to testify about federal election law. But if that's the New York state law, so be it. Doesn't seem fair to me.
"I seriously doubt the average person would have been hit with these very imaginative charges."
"What average person could even attempt what Trump did? This is a silly point."
Not really. Trump entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Daniels through their respective attorneys. There is nothing unusual or illegal about such agreements per se.
And now we have to sort out the allegation about whether a juror told someone Trump was going to be convicted-while the trial had not yet concluded.
I thought I had made my point about the inappropriateness of the press conference. There is a difference between calling for the acquittal of a defendant and calling for the conviction of one. (I know they didn't specifically call for the conviction, but DeNiro talked about how Trump would destroy, NY, destroy the country and destroy the world. No message to the jury there?
Yeah yeah, I said I'd TRY to be brief. Didn't say I'd be successful.
I think we've taken everything as far as it can go. As for the juror who revealed the results before the end of the trial, I was going to go off on Fox News, but it seems like the media in general isn't doing due diligence. Pretty typical though, as they need ratings and clicks, and that certainly would be a bombshell.
Just a bit of digging though reveals that the guy who posted those results describes himself as a "professional sh*tposter". In other words, it's one of those trolls who just looks for attention, especially if it causes problems. Nobody has actually linked him to any members of the jury though.
Even if it turns out to be true, I think my point still stands that the media was jumping to conclusions and looking for clicks/ratings (as they always do).
The juror issue may or may not turn out to be anything. It behooves the judge to look into it though.
And yes, we have beaten this thing to death, so let's await the judicial outcome and the next time I write something about Trump that sets you off.
Post a Comment