The Rule of Law’s End

 

Politico has published a rather fascinating and disturbing report on Robert Mueller’s devastating power as a special prosecutor. It’s final two paragraphs neatly sums up the present state of the rule of law in America:

“What is happening to Mueller’s targets is the same thing that has happened to hundreds of others, for years and years, when faced with experienced, talented, determined, and patient prosecutors and agents. In those circumstances, federal criminal law wins almost every time,” he added. “These prosecutors knew that going in and they’ve kept their eyes on that ball.”  [emphasis added]

And what terrible crimes did Manafort commit? What great public service did federal prosecutors do by blackmailing him into a confession?

More than 20 members of the special counsel’s investigation team appeared in the second-floor courtroom Friday morning, where lead prosecutors Andrew Weissmann, Greg Andres and Brandon Van Grack were joined by a phalanx of FBI and IRS agents who did significant grunt work preparing for Manafort’s trial on charges of failing to register as a lobbyist for the government of Ukraine several years ago, before he joined Trump’s 2016 campaign.

I feel so much safer knowing that federal law enforcement officials are protecting the public from the scourge of American political consultants doing business with foreign governments without filing the proper paperwork.

This kind of abuse of prosecutorial power makes a mockery of the rule of law. It’s hard to argue that America still has a functioning common-law criminal justice system when most cases never go to trial, the whole population is technically guilty of something and prosecutors can send whomever they wish to jail with neither accountability nor any real limits.

The common law is often said to be the Englishman’s birthright, but a better way to put it would be the shared inheritance of Anglo-Saxon civilization. The common law evolved to address the needs of an ethnically, religiously, and even racially diverse civilization that once spanned much of the globe and still dominates global geopolitics today. It is our birthright as a free people, and we have squandered it. History will not judge us kindly for doing so.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 28 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    What Mueller is doing is standard operating procedure for law enforcement.  If they wish they can put anybody in jail, destroy their lives, as they wish.  It is what happens with the Mueller probe, it is what black lives matters is protesting though they incorrectly make it a race issue.  There is very little justice in the justice system. Just law to be used by the powerful against the everybody.

    • #1
  2. JosePluma Coolidge
    JosePluma
    @JosePluma

    I think you mean “Manafort” in the third paragraph.

    Of course, Mueller may also have committed some crimes.  Let’s subject him to the same treatment and see what happens.

    • #2
  3. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    We had a chance to abolish special prosecution with Clinton but instead used it.  It’s an abomination that stinks of totalitarian show trials.  Now we have folks on our side calling for its use against the cabal that used it, the power of the state, and collusion to try to destroy a candidate and then his presidency.   Instead, when this nightmare is all over, we should seek legislation to abolish the practice.  It’s all always political anyway so lets just let the political class, congress, do its job of oversight.  We also need to clip the wings of DOJ power, strengthen the safeguards on keeping the intelligence agencies off home turf.  

    It’s all part of reducing the power of the administrative state.     The goal of reducing the power of the administrative state should be the lens through which we look at all these issues, including the war on drugs, civil rights, campaign finance etc.  it’s the problem, it will always be the problem, it’s the problem throughout history in all societies, and it is the problem the founders tried to address.

    • #3
  4. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    I Walton (View Comment):
    It’s all part of reducing the power of the administrative state. The goal of reducing the power of the administrative state should be the lens through which we look at all these issues, including the war on drugs, civil rights, campaign finance etc.

    Judge Kavanaugh has a good record against the misuse of the administrative state.

    • #4
  5. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    JosePluma (View Comment):
    Of course, Mueller may also have committed some crimes.

    How about choosing only Democrats to help his investigation? And wasting tax dollars with no evidence of the original crime, or even any crimes by the original subject?

    • #5
  6. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    I Walton (View Comment): We had a chance to abolish special prosecution with Clinton but instead used it.

    “We”…? Interesting perspective of the history of that time but…

    In August 1994, pursuant to the newly reauthorized Ethics in Government Act, Starr was appointed by a special three-judge division of the D.C. Circuit to continue the Whitewater investigation. He replaced Robert B. Fiske, a moderate Republican who had been appointed by attorney general Janet Reno.

    and

    Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Fiske as the special prosecutor to investigate the Whitewater controversy and the death of White House Counsel Vince Foster in January 1994.

    Please note that in 1994, Democrats held the Senate 57-43 and the House 270-164…and, oh yea, the White House:

    Vowing to head up an administration with the highest ethical standards, President Bill Clinton took the step of being the first president since Carter to endorse the institution of the independent counsel. On July 1, 1994, Clinton signed the reauthorization bill, and called the law “a foundation stone for the trust between the Government and our citizens.”

    So, Janet Reno, a three Judge panel, no control of anything inside the beltway, and the paragon of virtue at the helm and, yet, (with all due respect)…”We?”

    • #6
  7. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    philo (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment): We had a chance to abolish special prosecution with Clinton but instead used it.

    “We”…? Interesting perspective of the history of that time but…

    In August 1994, pursuant to the newly reauthorized Ethics in Government Act, Starr was appointed by a special three-judge division of the D.C. Circuit to continue the Whitewater investigation. He replaced Robert B. Fiske, a moderate Republican who had been appointed by attorney general Janet Reno.

    and

    Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Fiske as the special prosecutor to investigate the Whitewater controversy and the death of White House Counsel Vince Foster in January 1994.

    Please note that in 1994, Democrats held the Senate 57-43 and the House 270-164…and, oh yea, the White House:

    Vowing to head up an administration with the highest ethical standards, President Bill Clinton took the step of being the first president since Carter to endorse the institution of the independent counsel. On July 1, 1994, Clinton signed the reauthorization bill, and called the law “a foundation stone for the trust between the Government and our citizens.”

    So, Janet Reno, a three Judge panel, no control of anything inside the beltway, and the paragon of virtue at the helm and, yet, (with all due respect)…”We?”

    It’s always we.  Did Republicans and conservatives oppose, did they celebrate the process?  We have to oppose it when it’s working against the other party, but we loved the idea of getting even for former abuses.   Democrats might have joined us had we used the Clinton dilemma to end the damn thing.  

    • #7
  8. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):
    It’s all part of reducing the power of the administrative state. The goal of reducing the power of the administrative state should be the lens through which we look at all these issues, including the war on drugs, civil rights, campaign finance etc.

    Judge Kavanaugh has a good record against the misuse of the administrative state.

    Yes, that’s why they oppose anyone who isn’t a radical leftist anymore,  but my point is that the administrative state  is always abusive because that is the nature of blind unaccountable power.  It should be the soul of conservative argument and policy.  If nothing else maybe younger democrats will read the history of the progressive movement if we keep attacking this product of progressivism and call it what it is and explaining why it is by nature blind and unaccountable .

    • #8
  9. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Joseph Eagar: History will not judge us kindly for doing so.

    Sadly, Joseph, history is written by the victors.  Federalists have been losing for more than a century.  Brexit will become a procedural blip and the Tea Party a racist last gasp in the history books I’m afraid.

     

    • #9
  10. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    What Mueller is doing is standard operating procedure for law enforcement.

    Not exactly.  Typical law enforcement agencies start with a set of crimes, more than can investigate and solve, and try to find bad guys.  Mueller is starting with a set of people and expending unlimited resources to search back in time for a crime.  That is very expensive to defend against and the process is worse than most punishments.  Mueller is also (reportedly) threatening spouses and family members with painful investigations to make the process even more of a punishment.   A typical agency would also stop at the first prosecutable determination, but Mueller keeps digging and piling up more crimes to obtain 100’s of years of charges.  The result is that Manefort for the crimes of not paying taxes on expensive coats and not registering as foreign lobbies last decade is treated the same as Tim McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski.

    • #10
  11. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    I Walton (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment): We had a chance to abolish special prosecution with Clinton but instead used it.

    “We”…? Interesting perspective of the history of that time but…

    In August 1994, pursuant to the newly reauthorized Ethics in Government Act, Starr was appointed by a special three-judge division of the D.C. Circuit to continue the Whitewater investigation. He replaced Robert B. Fiske, a moderate Republican who had been appointed by attorney general Janet Reno.

    and

    Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Fiske as the special prosecutor to investigate the Whitewater controversy and the death of White House Counsel Vince Foster in January 1994.

    Please note that in 1994, Democrats held the Senate 57-43 and the House 270-164…and, oh yea, the White House:

    Vowing to head up an administration with the highest ethical standards, President Bill Clinton took the step of being the first president since Carter to endorse the institution of the independent counsel. On July 1, 1994, Clinton signed the reauthorization bill, and called the law “a foundation stone for the trust between the Government and our citizens.”

    So, Janet Reno, a three Judge panel, no control of anything inside the beltway, and the paragon of virtue at the helm and, yet, (with all due respect)…”We?”

    It’s always we. Did Republicans and conservatives oppose, did they celebrate the process? We have to oppose it when it’s working against the other party, but we loved the idea of getting even for former abuses. Democrats might have joined us had we used the Clinton dilemma to end the damn thing.

    I think all of this digging into the weeds is missing a more important point, the statue for appointing an independent counsel expired back in 1999.

    Goodbye, Independent Counsel Law

    After the Starr investigation everyone realized it was a bad idea and was eager to see it gone. This whole current mess falls squarely on Rosenstein for appointing Muller with an extremely broad, vague and classified mandate. 

    Eight months ago, in August 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein secretly gave Special Counsel Robert Mueller specific guidance as to the crimes Mueller is authorized to investigate. The guidance came about ten weeks after Mueller’s May 17 appointment. This guidance purports to describe the grounds for criminal investigations, marking the limits of the special counsel’s jurisdiction.

    As readers may recall, these columns have been critical of the deputy attorney general for failing to provide such guidance. Instead, I’ve contended, Rosenstein assigned Mueller to conduct a counterintelligence investigation, which is not a sound basis for appointing a special counsel; the regulations require grounds for a criminal investigation.

    So . . . was I wrong? No, I was right.

    The Deputy AG has revived the entire independent counsel mess through the back door. He cannot be fired soon enough. 

     

     

    • #11
  12. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    I miss Mark Steyn.

    • #12
  13. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    JosePluma (View Comment):
    Of course, Mueller may also have committed some crimes.

    How about choosing only Democrats to help his investigation? And wasting tax dollars with no evidence of the original crime, or even any crimes by the original subject?

    Why does it really matter?  DC Republicans are basically just Democrat lite.  

    • #13
  14. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Common law principles were eviscerated through certain legal maneuvers.

    IIRC, there was language inside the 1930’s act that created Glass Steagall that declared Common Law to no longer be part of our legal situation.

    • #14
  15. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    I Walton (View Comment):
    It’s always we.

    Increasingly, the electoral choices we have don’t mean “We the People.”

    • #15
  16. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    JosePluma (View Comment):
    Of course, Mueller may also have committed some crimes.

    How about choosing only Democrats to help his investigation? And wasting tax dollars with no evidence of the original crime, or even any crimes by the original subject?

    Why does it really matter? DC Republicans are basically just Democrat lite.

    The Republicrats, the Demicans and the sheeple voting on what to have for lunch.

    • #16
  17. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    “Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime” Lavrenity Beria, Head of the Secret Police, that would become the KGB.

    ((On a side note, Larry? Really, a Larry?))

    In 2016, the 3 amigos at DOJ and FBI conspired to turn the FBI into the KGB. The KGB was the “Sword and Shield” of the party – and what better description is there for the FBI’s activities in 2016?

    Shielding Hillary from criminal liability for her own incompetence and corruption, while creating fictional investigations and leaking damaging materials to the press, to slash and stab at the president.

    • #17
  18. SParker Member
    SParker
    @SParker

    Sorry, but I don’t get the connection between out-of-control and immune-from-everything prosecutors (an abuse available at all levels of the criminal justice system) and English common law*.  Also the current Special Counsel regulation of the DOJ  is not the Independent Counsel law, which was 86ed in 1999.  Maybe Congress hasn’t completely sorted it out, but at least they handed the  (necessary) function to DOJ.

    *If there is one, blame Henry II.

    [edit: Special Counsel is a creature of the DOJ, not Congress.]

    • #18
  19. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Ha. Manafort is guilty of money laundering and tax fraud. Found guilty by a jury, and then finally chose to plead guilty to other charges as part of a plea deal. I hear nothing but pro criminal whining from you lot. Oh it’s so unfair that Muller prosecuted this criminal. And now he is a flipper, a G D flipper. 

    Manafort deserves everything he’s gotten. He is human scum and a criminal. Who long ago decided to become the lobbyist for criminals and dictators. 

     

    • #19
  20. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Valiuth (View Comment):

     

    Manafort deserves everything he’s gotten. He is human scum and a criminal. Who long ago decided to become the lobbyist for criminals and dictators.

     

    Sounds like a great witness for the prosecution. 

    • #20
  21. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Manafort deserves everything he’s gotten. He is human scum and a criminal. Who long ago decided to become the lobbyist for criminals and dictators. 

     

    Ok, lets say thats all true. The only reason he got caught was his political associates. If he’d hung out more with the Podesta crowd, the FBI would not have looked twice at him for fear of knocking over a Podesta/Clinton operation.

     

    • #21
  22. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Manafort deserves everything he’s gotten. He is human scum and a criminal. Who long ago decided to become the lobbyist for criminals and dictators.

    Ok, lets say thats all true. The only reason he got caught was his political associates. If he’d hung out more with the Podesta crowd, the FBI would not have looked twice at him for fear of knocking over a Podesta/Clinton operation.

    Oh, that “we” were so doggedly principled in our weeding out of the criminals and human scum inside our beltway. A big job, I know, but I personally would start with anyone who happened to occupy a U. S. Senate seat since about 2007 and everyone from those respective staffs. That would keep our courts (and our sanctimonious neighbors) rather busy for quite some time. (And, I assure you, there would be many nervously puckered sphincters in fancy offices from sea to shining sea. Additionally, we wouldn’t even need to pretend to care about the bit players…most of the names involved would be recognizable.) But, alas, the primary “criminals” and “human scum” are safe and we must be satisfied with maximizing our political use of the second tier. Bravo.

    • #22
  23. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    philo (View Comment):
    Oh, that “we” were so doggedly principled in our weeding out of the criminals and human scum inside our beltway. A big job, I know, but I personally would start with anyone who happened to occupy a U. S. Senate seat since about 2007 and everyone from those respective staffs. That would keep our courts (and our sanctimonious neighbors) rather busy for quite some time. (And, I assure you, there would be many nervously puckered sphincters in fancy offices from sea to shining sea. Additionally, we wouldn’t even need to pretend to care about the bit players…most of the names involved would be recognizable.) But, alas, the primary “criminals” and “human scum” are safe and we must be satisfied with maximizing our political use of the second tier. Bravo.

    The opportunity was missed on Jan 20 2017, Trump should have did what Obama did when he assumed office. Terminate all appointees of the prior administration, even if that meant leaving an office vacant. I think this has been the source of so many troubles, that could simply have been avoided. Maybe it would have also lit a fire on the senate to stop slow walking his appointments. Why would democrats speed things along, if their guy would be running an office while waiting for the Trump appointment? Spilled milk.

    • #23
  24. Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu Inactive
    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu
    @YehoshuaBenEliyahu

    “What is happening to Mueller’s targets is the same thing that has happened to hundreds of others, for years and years, when faced with experienced, talented, determined, and patient prosecutors and agents. In those circumstances, federal criminal law wins almost every time,” he added. “These prosecutors knew that going in and they’ve kept their eyes on that ball.” [emphasis added]

    Meanwhile, murder is rife in Chicago and no one gives a hoot.  Where are the prosecutors of the killers?

    • #24
  25. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu (View Comment):
    “What is happening to Mueller’s targets is the same thing that has happened to hundreds of others, for years and years, when faced with experienced, talented, determined, and patient prosecutors and agents. In those circumstances, federal criminal law wins almost every time,” he added. “These prosecutors knew that going in and they’ve kept their eyes on that ball.” [emphasis added]

    Meanwhile, murder is rife in Chicago and no one gives a hoot. Where are the prosecutors of the killers?

    Mueller is a high end version of what Victor Davis Hanson has been describing for years in California:

    It is almost as if the more California regulates, the more it does not regulate. Its public employees prefer to go after misdemeanors in the upscale areas to justify our expensive oversight industry, while ignoring the felonies in the downtrodden areas, which are becoming feral and beyond the ability of any inspector to do anything but feel irrelevant.

    • #25
  26. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Ha. Manafort is guilty of money laundering and tax fraud. Found guilty by a jury, and then finally chose to plead guilty to other charges as part of a plea deal. I hear nothing but pro criminal whining from you lot. Oh it’s so unfair that Muller prosecuted this criminal. And now he is a flipper, a G D flipper.

    Manafort deserves everything he’s gotten. He is human scum and a criminal. Who long ago decided to become the lobbyist for criminals and dictators.

     

    All that you say may be so.

    But the fact remains that the financial crimes he was convicted of were committed in 2005, which is 13 years ago. How is it that he is not offered “statute of limitations” as a defense? (Meanwhile financial criminal extra ordinaire Marc Rich received a pardon from Bill Clinton. This pardon is one of the several suspect events that State Attorney for New York Comey absolved Clinton of, long before he was made head of the FBI.)

    Six to seven years is the most we normal humans have to worry about in terms of financial offenses. I have asked the question on five different forums – yet no one has come up with one answer about why Manafort is the exception to the rule about 6 years…

    HRC will use that six year limitation regarding her Uranium One dealings, if we should ever get around to those. Obama will use that statute as well, should we ever nail him for his setting  up the alphabet agencies to be politically militarized agents against political opponents.

    • #26
  27. Joseph Eagar Member
    Joseph Eagar
    @JosephEagar

    Manafort did consulting work for a right wing pro Putin Ukrainian president, who may not have won office entirely fairly, but neither did the people who removed him via coup de etat.

    That’s not the same as working for a dictator. A dictator wouldn’t have lost power so easily.

    • #27
  28. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Joseph Eagar (View Comment):

    Manafort did consulting work for a right wing pro Putin Ukrainian president, who may not have won office entirely fairly, but neither did the people who removed him via coup de etat.

    That’s not the same as working for a dictator. A dictator wouldn’t have lost power so easily.

    I am not sure that now is the time to mention those who were part of the military that took out that pro-Putin Ukrainian President happened to be skin heads. And that part of the reason for the great concern among such fixtures in our government, like the Biden family, was that Joe Biden’s son sat on the board of one of the larger Energy firm eagerly interested in getting its paws all over the tremendous  amount of shale oil resources that some of the Ukraine sits upon.

    • #28
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.