How do you know it’s a political prosecution (lawfare)?
“And all I said was that if you’ve done something illegal, if you’ve used the government inappropriately and against the law, you should be held accountable,” she said in response to Trump’s criticism, according to Robinson.
But Slotkin’s original remarks weren’t simply about prosecuting identifiable crimes. They were about sending a warning to young people considering employment in the Trump administration.
They were about intimidation – political “lawfare” of a type quite common with Democrats.
For another excellent example, please see the Dershowitz quotes in this post about The 65 Project, a group promoting lawfare designed to intimidate lawyers who might work for Trump. From Dershowitz:
There is a nefarious group that calls itself The 65 Project that has as its goal to intimidate lawyers into not representing Trump or anyone associated with him. They have threatened to file bar charges against any such lawyers. When these threats first emerged, I wrote an op-ed offering to defend pro bono any lawyers that The 65 Project goes after. So The 65 Project immediately went after me, and contrived a charge based on a case in which I was a constitutional consultant, but designed to send a message to potential Trump lawyers: if you defend Trump or anyone associated with him, we will target you and find something to charge you with. The lawyers to whom I spoke are fully aware of this threat — and they are taking it seriously.
As usual with lawfare, The 65 Project describes itself as defending democracy and the rule of law. Orwellian.
How can one tell the difference between a bona fide prosecution and lawfare? For many people, it’s simple: if my party does it, it’s a bona fide prosecution. If the other party does it, it’s nefarious lawfare. But of course, that’s an obviously partisan test.
The real test goes like this:
(1) Is the evidence solid?
(2) Is the violation one that isn’t suddenly made up, nor is the statute stretched beyond recognition?
(3) Were the defendant’s rights violated in building the case?
(4) Are known felons the only people ready to testify against the defendant?
There’s probably more, but you get the idea.
Before this.is over there will be bodies.
That’s obviously NOT what Slotkin said. Her original statement was that she wanted the threat of unspecified prosecution to intimidate anyone thinking about working for the current administration. She should be censured by the Senate as a bare minimum.
#5) If the only prosecution for this infraction (for 5? 10? 20 years?) is the accused, it’s likely political.
Yes, like Trump.
But immigration fraud has often been prosecuted, tho the recent news hasn’t noted how often it’s been caught & prosecuted.
Lying about your age is often done.
The legal system is a lot less precise than most people assume. Recall the old saw about how a prosecutor could “indict a ham sandwich.” That’s not far from true. Especially when your defendant is anything other than Eagle Scout and given the thicket of statutes, it’s actually not that difficult to twist and warp a fact pattern to make it fit into some kind of existing crime or civil violation. (Which is why I often say that Carter Page is, undoubtedly, the most innocent man in America.)
I don’t think most people grasp the degree to which the criminal justice system in particular relies on the good faith, judgement, and restraint of the state’s attorneys. If you have unscrupulous or ideologically blinkered prosecutors, look out. And that’s what we have.
I think Bill Barr propounded the best standard (and remember, this comment was in defense of Trump). If the prosecution of a political opponent is for anything other than a “meat and potatoes” crime, then there is a good chance that it is lawfare.