Monday, February 17, 2020

Recommended Reads For Presidents Day: The Use Of Prosecutors

Two recommended reads that provide additional insights into the way the office of prosecutor fits into the progressive scheme for societal and political transformation. The two, of course, go hand in hand.

First, Andrew McCarthy weighs in:

The Progressive Prosecutor Project
How and why the nation's crime busters are becoming criminal enablers

McCarthy focuses on the activities of Chesa Boudin, one of the District Attorneys who was elected in various urban centers across the country thanks to huge amounts of George Soros' money:

A newly minted district attorney for a major American city vows to establish an immigration unit. At first blush, that would seem entirely normal for a prosecutor’s office. Immigration laws require enforcement, and prosecutors are in the law-enforcement business. 
But no—the new San Francisco DA actually has in mind an immigration defense unit. He wants to assign a staff of prosecutors to protect undocumented aliens—those who are either illegal and thus deportable to begin with, or for whom a criminal conviction could result in loss of lawful status and thus eventual deportation. The unit’s enforcement target would be not the law violators but the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who enforce federal laws, along with any local police and corrections officials who have the temerity to assist ICE in that endeavor. The prosecutors’ mission, in the words of their new boss, would be to “stand up to Trump on immigration”—the president having made signature issues of border security and the stepped-up deportation of aliens who flout the laws.
DA candidates tend to be politically active lawyers who have gained prosecutorial experience as young attorneys before moving on to respected law firms. They are slated by their party to run for the chief prosecutor position. Often, these races are not competitive. In de facto one-party governance (Democratic), which controls most urban centers, the DA candidate runs virtually unopposed, the real contest limited to any intraparty vying for the nomination. 
Consequently, DA positions have been ripe for the taking. Over the last few years, a network of progressive activists backed by big money has seized the day. 
Most notable is George Soros, the 89-year-old billionaire investor and currency trader, whose Open Society Foundations lavishly fund leftist causes and politicians. As noted by the left-leaning scholar Rachel Elise Barkow (in her provocative bestseller, Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration), DA campaigns are traditionally modest affairs, with budgets that seldom exceed five-figure fundraising. This creates an opportunity, and the Soros network has pounced, overwhelming the field by pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of favored candidates. 
As he recounts in his memoir Gringo: A Coming of Age in Latin America, Chesa Boudin cut his political teeth as a translator and think-tank researcher for Hugo Chavez’s regime. In this, he was tracing the footsteps of Ayers, a frequent visitor to Venezuela and devotee of the Bolivarian revolution’s education “reforms”—and how well that is all working out! Boudin eventually joined the San Francisco public defender’s office but did not try cases and had no prosecutorial experience when he ran for DA. 
In that progressive paradise, though, he is radical royalty, his candidacy lauded by Senator Bernie Sanders, Communist icon Angela Davis, Islamist apologist Linda Sarsour, and Shaun King, the civil-rights activist and Black Lives Matter promoter. His fundraising blew away the field, led by Soros ally Chloe Cockburn (program manager for criminal-justice reform at the Open Philanthropy Project, a left-wing mega-donor, after a stint as counsel to the ACLU’s “campaign to end mass incarceration”). Also included among Boudin supporters were such Soros-backed ventures as the Tides Foundation and the Brennan Center for Justice.
The second recommended read--an article by Adam Mill--simply examines the prosecutorial conduct in several high profile federal cases, including those of General Michael Flynn and Roger Stone:

Why Everyone Should Cheer That Roger Stone’s Corrupt Prosecutors Resigned
The prosecutors who attempted to deceive the court and their DOJ superiors all resigned in a huff. Let’s hope the door hit each of them in the backside as they stormed out.

Mill has an interesting, but entirely valid, take on these cases--a view of our country's justice system which conservative Americans have not traditionally accepted:

In 2020, I find myself wondering whether a college student in a distant country at an Amnesty International meeting might select the profile of Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, or Michael Flynn. All of these committed the unspeakable crime of helping Trump win an election. 
Flynn and Papadopoulos were guilty of nothing until FBI agents got them talking long enough to find a mismatch between secretly recorded conversations and their targets’ failing memories.
Manafort’s tormentors used torture through solitary confinement, violating international human rights standards. Everyone knows politics motivated the viciousness with which U.S. prosecutors pursued these men. 
If an international student were writing to seek justice for Stone, she would write the letter directly to Donald Trump, the president of the United States. The president has two constitutional powers that authorize his intercession to stop the persecution of a political dissident, which Stone absolutely is. 
First, as I’ve written before, Trump is the head of the executive branch. The Department of Justice is not an independent branch of government. Nobody at the DOJ stands for an election. Only through the president can the voters reach and control the awesome power of the federal criminal prosecutor. Second, the president has the un-appealable constitutional power to cancel any federal prosecution—even before the trial.

Having set current events within that context, Mill examines the details. He ends with this:

The Stone case is just one battle in a multi-front war against the constitutional right of the people to elect the leaders who have power over them. Over and over and over again, we’re told that the elected president threatens the Constitution by failing to submit to his un-elected bureaucratic masters. Impeachment was about the president failing to take direction from Lt. Col. Alex Vindman and failing to submit to unelected intelligence bureaucrats.
With the benefit of a middle school civics class, my son put it this way: England has ceremonial nobility, but power is determined through elections. In America, we have the opposite. That’s exactly right. These bureaucrats consider themselves more educated and moral than the grubby political leaders we send them after elections. All countries have elections. But if you want to live in a real democracy, the elected leaders must be allowed to wield power.


  1. Of course, one can watch what is happening in Italy at the moment. There the leader of the LEGA, the former leader in the government until last Summer, is going to be prosecuted for kidnapping just to keep him from running in the elections that are likely going to be called before the end of this year. This is all banana republic stuff, and I now realize the United States is much further down this road than I realized even 3 years ago, and I have always been a cynic. This dangerous stuff the Democrats are doing.

    1. Essentially, they're seeking a de facto one party state, with the FBI the sword and shield of that one party.

    2. A life-long friend of mine, Italian native born and resident of Tuscany, informs me that their dysfunctional justice system is not under the executive branch, due to the fallout from the perversions of Mussolini's regime, but rather, effectively controlled by (left-leaning) lawyers. Prosecutors and judges are constitutionally independent of the government. It's a bureaucracy unto itself without political accountability. (Judges--life appointment--can be removed for disciplinary reasons by the Ministry of Justice. A rarity itself.) As a result, it reeks of the same corruption as Mussolini's "just for us" system.

  2. Kim Foxx is a Soros backed prosecutor in Chicago. She was in the middle of them Jussie Smollett debacle.

    And interesting Jussie’s mother was a black panther, so he is another red diaper baby. What a small world!

    Lots of good information on her impact here:

    I’m don’t get what the goal is by getting prosecutors that make the city unlivable due to high crime. It’s a cheap investment by Soros with a great ROI.

  3. You wrote "First, as I’ve written before, Trump is the head of the executive branch. The Department of Justice is not an independent branch of government. Nobody at the DOJ stands for an election. Only through the president can the voters reach and control the awesome power of the federal criminal prosecutor. Second, the president has the un-appealable constitutional power to cancel any federal prosecution—even before the trial."

    A lot of supposed 'conservatives' don't appear to know this. Let's think about who opposes The People saying, in effect, "We have had enough and we support this President." David French, William Kristol, et. al. I used to admire David French but I have come to loathe him. Kristol is contemptible. He reminds me of John "I actually voted for the war before I opposed it" Kerry. "I actually supported conservatism before I opposed it."

    I've been on a kick in your comments section lately about speculating about privileged men and wondering what kind of actual work they've ever done. Kristol just strikes me as someone who does come from a privileged life and has had doors opened for him.

    Really sad about them, Will, Rubin, Boot, and others.

  4. On the Gateway Pundit, I've seen a lot about Kim Gardner from St. Louis. She pursued Missouri's former governor, Eric Greitens. In doing so, she hired a lot of expensive, outside talent. One of her rented investigators appears to have committed perjury by saying he didn't take notes when he questioned a witness. When his supposedly malfunctioning recorder coughed up his taped session, it's pretty much proven that he was taking notes, as he is writing in his notebook.

    Based upon the aforementioned paragraph, Gardner is under investigation by a special prosecutor. As they are closing in, she is suing in federal court using an old KKK statute as a desperate refuge. Apparently some white policemen used social media and said things along the lines that Black History Month is racist. She draws a tenuous analogy to them obstructing her efforts to stand up for the black community.

    I actually read her entire filing and it comes across as a hurt feelings report.

    Then there's Marilyn Mosby. But enough. You get the drift.

  5. Off topic comment. I am one of the few who still calls today "George Washington's Birthday." This Federal Holiday was never changed to "Presidents' Day." Some states have combined Washington and Lincoln's birthdays into a generic Presidents' Day holiday, but not Uncle Sam.

    Sadly, it just seems to be a marketing day for mattress and appliance salesmen.

  6. For your reading (dis)pleasure, here is a link to look at some of the Gateway Pundit's exposes on Gardner and her ties to Soros.



    Notice to Court that the A USA DC will be making a court appearance re: the Stone trial, on the eve of Stone's sentencing

    Two things:

    1. Same AUSA who advised McCabe he is not being prosecuted for the IG referral.

    2. he is the head of the DC USA's Public Corruption Unit.

    Now why would the the head of the Public Corruption Unit of the DC USA be making a court appearance regarding Stone's trial, on the eve of his sentencing?

    Could be some fireworks if he's there to advise the court of prosecutorial misconduct by the four recently departed prosecutors.

    Just speculating...

    1. Last I heard it was being reported that they'd be arguing against a new trial for Stone. Is this guy just being thrown into the breach since the other 4 walked?

      I'd like to believe your speculation.

    2. I'd like to believe it as well, but here's the hing I can't explain any other way:

      If this guy is a substitute off the bench, then why doesn't the notice to the court say he's replacing one of the 4 prosecutors who resigned from the case?

      The second point is that he IS the head of the Public Corruption Office for the DC USA, which, in absence of evidence he's being used as a temporary utility lawyer, means the only reason he would appear in the court for Stone's case much have something to do with Public Corruption.

      And the only two things that come to mind are Prosecutorial Misconduct, or they are going to demand a recusal by the judge, (or arrest her on the spot) for judicial misconduct. I can't think of any other reason for the head of the Public Corruption Office to make an appearance like this, other than the "utility lawyer" scenario, in which case the notice should have indicated that was his reason for appearing.

      If I'm right, this puts a whole new light of Shea's appointment just ahead of the sentencing recommendation submittal to the court. They needed Liu out of the way for the Public Corruption Unit to make it's "move."

      Again, wishful speculation perhaps on my part, but I don't know how else to square the known facts. It also fits the growing gut sense something really big is about to happen.

    3. Possibly coincidental, but makes you go "Hmmmm"....

      Manafort's business partner, who was charged by Mueller Thugs along with Manafort, was Greg Craig, former WH Counsel for Obama. He became a cooperating witness.

      And who was the judge on the case?

      Does the name "Amy Berman Jackson" ring any bells?

      Yes, the Obama appointed judge presided over the trials of Greg Craig (he was found NOT GUILTY, surprise, surprise,) Rick Gates (guilty,) AND Roger Stone.

      My, my; one wonder's how Judge Jackson manages to win the Mueller case Trifecta.

      There is also an unconfirmed claim floating around the Twitterverse that the Craig case transcript includes Judge Jackson instructing the jurors about what wonderful and important man Craig was in the Obama WH -- *nod-nod*, *wink-wink*.

      And in the completely wild speculation department, you don't suppose judge Jackson and the Stone jury forewoman knew each other before the trial, in light of how far the judge went in overruling defense objections to seating her, and other jurors.

  8. UPDATE:

    Stone files motion for Judge Disqualification, due to comments she made at sentencing that impinge on Stone's yet to be ruled upon Motion for a new Trial due to juror misconduct/bias.