Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. The Politicization of Prosecutions

 

The latest kerfuffle over the sentence that Roger Stone should receive is a symptom of a much larger problem: the subjective standards of punishment and indictments. The issue speaks to a much larger problem in the entire justice system. For some time now, we have been at the mercy of subjective law enforcement.

As a police officer, I never asked anyone I arrested who they voted for, or the political party they had selected on their voter registration card. Their motivation was not my main concern for a crime that was committed. My only concern was this: did the elements of the law that met the definition of a specific crime had been committed?

Roger Stone is not a rapist or a murderer. The actress Lori Laughlin of the USC scandal is not a danger to society.

While I worked as a police officer there were times that someone offered a rationalization for some action they took that lead to their arrest. Hate crimes fall into this category for me. No matter what the motive for an assault, the injury inflicted carries just as much pain for the victim whether or not it concerns religion, race, or creed.

The politicization of law enforcement allows for a subjective standard that means it’s not the action that matters. What matters is who the perpetrator is, and who the victim is. Other than cheating in the election process, I cannot think of a faster way to tear a nation apart.

As a former police officer, my advice to my fellow citizens would be we need to get off this road now.

Published in Law
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 growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 32 comments.

  1. OmegaPaladin Moderator

    Since antiquity, the State or the King has offered two main services to the people – defense against foreign invaders, and enforcement of the rule of law. Take away the law, and you are left with a protection racket. If there is not justice under the law, people will turn to the law of revenge and refuse to submit to the verdict of courts. Society would unravel.

    “Law being removed, what are kingdoms but great robberies?” Augustine of Hippo, The City of God

    • #1
    • February 12, 2020, at 5:14 PM PST
    • 20 likes
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    The goal is a protection racket. That is what the left wants. 

    • #2
    • February 12, 2020, at 5:41 PM PST
    • 7 likes
  3. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    In all the progressive utopias, law enforcement depends on your connection to the power structure.

    • #3
    • February 12, 2020, at 6:27 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  4. tigerlily Member

    Well stated Doug.

    • #4
    • February 12, 2020, at 6:42 PM PST
    • 7 likes
  5. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Doug Watt: been on the road of subjective law enforcement.

    We have always had subjective law enforcement. That is why prosecutors are elected positions. The problem comes, when the people are so partisan and amoral that they choose prosecutors that are unjust. A moral people must prevail or all is lost. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason.

    Image result for image lady justice

    • #5
    • February 12, 2020, at 6:46 PM PST
    • 14 likes
  6. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    In all the progressive utopias, law enforcement depends on your connection to the power structure.

    Indeed. In a socialist society access to justice, food, housing, and all necessities depend on the true currency of party power. Sure there is income equality, but money is not the real currency.

    • #6
    • February 12, 2020, at 6:49 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  7. Quietpi Member

    Amen and amen.

    • #7
    • February 12, 2020, at 8:53 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  8. Ontheleftcoast Member

    https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1227753808404467713

    • #8
    • February 12, 2020, at 11:34 PM PST
    • 7 likes
  9. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Arresting someone not so much for their own crimes but to get some leverage to encourage them to testify against someone else always feels like a sleazy move to me. How much should we trust such testimonies? And then if the person refuses, you need excessive punishment for the crime of making the prosecutor look bad.

    As for celebrities, I did not feel any safer when Martha Stewart was behind bars for losing money on a stock deal. 

    • #9
    • February 13, 2020, at 4:00 AM PST
    • 18 likes
  10. OkieSailor Member
    OkieSailor Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    You’ve hit the nail squarely on its head. Whenever any government is turned from its correct function of protection from enemies and criminals to “getting my slice of the pie” this is the result. Democracies are the worst actors on this score historically. That’s why the Founders set up a Republic not a Democracy. We the People will either correct this or suffer the consequences. To quote a recent President, “Elections matter.” And they matter at all levels, not just the Presidency.

    • #10
    • February 13, 2020, at 4:12 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  11. Stad Thatcher

    Doug Watt: Lori Laughlin of the USC scandal is not a danger to society.

    I thought her serving time was an outrageous punishment given the crime. And I’m not a big fan of Hollywood in general.

    • #11
    • February 13, 2020, at 5:32 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  12. Ontheleftcoast Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: Lori Laughlin of the USC scandal is not a danger to society.

    I thought her serving time was an outrageous punishment given the crime. And I’m not a big fan of Hollywood in general.

    Higher Indoctrination and the associated bureaucracy is one the pivotal institutions of the Deep State. She damaged the brand. In essence, lèsé-majesté publicly committed by an aristo.

    Or maybe it was a violation of the (so far) unwritten Article 58 by a prominent and celebrated Party member.

    Article 58 of the Russian SFSR Penal Code was put in force on 25 February 1927 to arrest those suspected of counter-revolutionary activities. It was revised several times. In particular, its Article 58-1 was updated by the listed sub-articles and put in force on 8 June 1934.

    This article introduced the formal notion of the enemy of workers: those subject to articles 58-2 — 58-13 (those under 58-1 were “traitors”, 58-14 were “saboteurs”)

    Either way, her punishment had to be public and harsh.

    • #12
    • February 13, 2020, at 6:25 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  13. OldPhil Coolidge

    It’s coming out now that the jury FOREMAN in Stone’s trial never should have been on the jury.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-foreman-in-roger-stone-case-was-trump-hating-russia-collusion-hoaxer/

    • #13
    • February 13, 2020, at 7:02 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  14. Ontheleftcoast Member

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    It’s coming out now that the jury FOREMAN in Stone’s trial never should have been on the jury.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-foreman-in-roger-stone-case-was-trump-hating-russia-collusion-hoaxer/

    Not just the juror:

     

    Charlie Kirk @charliekirk1

    Facts:

    Roger Stone was barred completely from posting anything on social media by Democrat Judge Amy Berman Jackson

    Meanwhile, the lead juror’s social media was full of attacks on Trump and praise for Democrats like Hillary Clinton

    Does that sound like a fair trial?

    🤔

    Apparently the judge asked the juror if she could be objective and was assured that she could be. Where was Stone’s lawyer?

    • #14
    • February 13, 2020, at 9:11 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  15. BillGollier Coolidge
    • #15
    • February 13, 2020, at 9:20 AM PST
    • Like
  16. Bill Nelson Member

    Vance Richards (View Comment):
    I did not feel any safer when Martha Stewart was behind bars for losing money on a stock deal.

    I did.

    • #16
    • February 13, 2020, at 9:32 AM PST
    • Like
  17. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    It’s coming out now that the jury FOREMAN in Stone’s trial never should have been on the jury.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-foreman-in-roger-stone-case-was-trump-hating-russia-collusion-hoaxer/

    Not just the juror:

     

    Charlie Kirk @charliekirk1

    Facts:

    Roger Stone was barred completely from posting anything on social media by Democrat Judge Amy Berman Jackson

    Meanwhile, the lead juror’s social media was full of attacks on Trump and praise for Democrats like Hillary Clinton

    Does that sound like a fair trial?

    🤔

    Apparently the judge asked the juror if she could be objective and was assured that she could be. Where was Stone’s lawyer?

    The story is outrageous and should result in reversal of the verdict.

    • #17
    • February 13, 2020, at 10:04 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  18. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    It’s coming out now that the jury FOREMAN in Stone’s trial never should have been on the jury.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-foreman-in-roger-stone-case-was-trump-hating-russia-collusion-hoaxer/

    Not just the juror:

     

    Charlie Kirk @charliekirk1

    Facts:

    Roger Stone was barred completely from posting anything on social media by Democrat Judge Amy Berman Jackson

    Meanwhile, the lead juror’s social media was full of attacks on Trump and praise for Democrats like Hillary Clinton

    Does that sound like a fair trial?

    🤔

    Apparently the judge asked the juror if she could be objective and was assured that she could be. Where was Stone’s lawyer?

    Apparently the Stone defense asked to have that juror removed for cause and the judge kept the juror.

    Let’s also revisit who ordered the El Chapo-level SWAT raid on grandpa Stone.

    • #18
    • February 13, 2020, at 10:17 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  19. Bill Nelson Member

    BillGollier (View Comment):

    Of course according to Jonah and David F Donald Trump has so violated the rule of law on this case that the U.S. will never recover from it.

    That is an inaccurate statement. Mr. Goldberg’s point is that this will set a new standard in presidential behavior, and there is a strong case for this, as many presidents justify their actions by claiming that the previous administrations had also done the same. And also note that Mr. Goldberg is an advocate of reducing the power of the executive branch and returning it to congress.

    So now, at this time, another impeachment would be political suicide for the House democrats. How then is Pres. trump restrained? Certainly his behavior and rhetoric after the vote does not show any serious reflection, much less any type of remorse.

    What happens if Pete Buttigieg’s brother (not sure if he has one) works in a business that deals in China. And China then announces that the brother is being investigated for corruption. Did Trump make a call and ask for a favor? If he did, is this ok? Recent events seem to say so.

    • #19
    • February 13, 2020, at 10:33 AM PST
    • Like
  20. BillGollier Coolidge

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    BillGollier (View Comment):

    Of course according to Jonah and David F Donald Trump has so violated the rule of law on this case that the U.S. will never recover from it.

    That is an inaccurate statement. Mr. Goldberg’s point is that this will set a new standard in presidential behavior, and there is a strong case for this, as many presidents justify their actions by claiming that the previous administrations had also done the same. And also note that Mr. Goldberg is an advocate of reducing the power of the executive branch and returning it to congress.

    So now, at this time, another impeachment would be political suicide for the House democrats. How then is Pres. trump restrained? Certainly his behavior and rhetoric after the vote does not show any serious reflection, much less any type of remorse.

    What happens if Pete Buttigieg’s brother (not sure if he has one) works in a business that deals in China. And China then announces that the brother is being investigated for corruption. Did Trump make a call and ask for a favor? If he did, is this ok? Recent events seem to say so.

    Great points which is why I tired to delete the comment; I got ahead of myself and the post was a mistake. 

    • #20
    • February 13, 2020, at 10:57 AM PST
    • 1 like
  21. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    The cry is about “independence” for the Department of Justice. 

    Because I’m old I remember when the FBI was truly independent, J. Edgar Hoover’s private little fiefdom. How did that work out? Any time you divorce a government agency that has the ability to deprive you of your liberty and is unanswerable to the elected officials, you’re asking for trouble.

    • #21
    • February 13, 2020, at 10:58 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  22. Bill Nelson Member

    BillGollier (View Comment):
    I got ahead of myself

    I am usually behind myself. Not sure how it happens.

     

    • #22
    • February 13, 2020, at 11:16 AM PST
    • Like
  23. Percival Thatcher
    Percival Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    Certainly his behavior and rhetoric after the vote does not show any serious reflection, much less any type of remorse.

    Has a new standard in pundit behavior been set? Are we doomed to endure four year hissy fits going forward?

    • #23
    • February 13, 2020, at 11:18 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  24. Percival Thatcher
    Percival Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Man acquitted of wrongdoing fails to show contrition for his non-crimes. Film at eleven.

    • #24
    • February 13, 2020, at 11:19 AM PST
    • 9 likes
  25. Michael Minnott Member
    Michael Minnott Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    What happens if Pete Buttigieg’s brother (not sure if he has one) works in a business that deals in China. And China then announces that the brother is being investigated for corruption. Did Trump make a call and ask for a favor? If he did, is this ok? Recent events seem to say so.

    Bill, if China “employed” Buttigieg’s brother so as to launder bribe money to influence Pete and/or the U.S. government, then it would be perfectly appropriate for Trump to ask Chinese officials to investigate his brother.

    The entire basis of Trump’s impeachment was absurd. It is ridiculous that a president would be barred from investigating crime and corruption if it might reflect badly on potential, or actual political opponents. By that logic if Biden shot someone and was prosecuted under Federal law, it would be impeachable as Trump would surely benefit politically.

    • #25
    • February 13, 2020, at 1:57 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  26. Bill Nelson Member

    Michael Minnott (View Comment):
    Bill, if China “employed” Buttigieg’s brother so as to launder bribe money to influence Pete and/or the U.S. government, then it would be perfectly appropriate for Trump to ask Chinese officials to investigate his brother.

    You jumped ahead to a conviction. China is going to investigate someone. There is no evidence that this person has done anything illegal. And if Pres. Trump thought so, then the DOJ would open an investigation based on evidence of a crime being committed.

    The investigation into the Trump campaign was started without evidence of wrong doing, just suspicion. Trump has no evidence on Hunter Biden, not even a rational suspicion.

    Again, to my question. If China announces an investigation into this fictional brother, and Trump had asked them to do so, is this now ok?

     

    • #26
    • February 13, 2020, at 2:17 PM PST
    • Like
  27. OmegaPaladin Moderator

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    Michael Minnott (View Comment):
    Bill, if China “employed” Buttigieg’s brother so as to launder bribe money to influence Pete and/or the U.S. government, then it would be perfectly appropriate for Trump to ask Chinese officials to investigate his brother.

    You jumped ahead to a conviction. China is going to investigate someone. There is no evidence that this person has done anything illegal. And if Pres. Trump thought so, then the DOJ would open an investigation based on evidence of a crime being committed.

    The investigation into the Trump campaign was started without evidence of wrong doing, just suspicion. Trump has no evidence on Hunter Biden, not even a rational suspicion.

    Again, to my question. If China announces an investigation into this fictional brother, and Trump had asked them to do so, is this now ok?

    Sure, if there is credible evidence. For example, a video of someone boasting about manipulating the other country or a person hired to work in an extremely well-paid position with no qualifications besides experience with cocaine. I have seen my share of patronage jobs living in Chicago – Hunter was clearly in the job for his connections, not for any talent. 

    Have you considered that for a lot of us, having Trump be less restrained is a good thing? I feel like we live in parallel worlds, or as Jonah would say, a mirror universe.

    • #27
    • February 13, 2020, at 4:48 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  28. Michael Minnott Member
    Michael Minnott Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    Michael Minnott (View Comment):
    Bill, if China “employed” Buttigieg’s brother so as to launder bribe money to influence Pete and/or the U.S. government, then it would be perfectly appropriate for Trump to ask Chinese officials to investigate his brother.

    You jumped ahead to a conviction. China is going to investigate someone. There is no evidence that this person has done anything illegal. And if Pres. Trump thought so, then the DOJ would open an investigation based on evidence of a crime being committed.

    The investigation into the Trump campaign was started without evidence of wrong doing, just suspicion. Trump has no evidence on Hunter Biden, not even a rational suspicion.

    Again, to my question. If China announces an investigation into this fictional brother, and Trump had asked them to do so, is this now ok?

     

    I don’t agree that “Trump has no evidence on Hunter Biden, not even a rational suspicion.” Hunter’s employment at and handsome compensation from Burisma did not jibe with any of his known professional experience. It created a clear conflict of interest in that Joe was at that time directly involved with American diplomacy in Ukraine. It is easy to see how influence and favors could potentially be purchased from the Obama administration by hiring Joe’s son. This also tied into the Russian collusion hoax that had started under Obama’s watch and which Trump officials believed had involved Ukraine. None of this in and of itself makes Hunter, or Joe guilty of anything, but it does appear to meet the standard of “rational suspicion”.

    So yes, assuming that you had the same circumstances regarding Pete Buttigieg and his fictional brother, then it would be appropriate for Trump to ask the Chinese to investigate it.

    • #28
    • February 13, 2020, at 8:00 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  29. Al Sparks Thatcher

    Doug Watt: The actress Lori Laughlin of the USC scandal is not a danger to society.

    I’ve said this before on this site. The elite institutions involved can take care of themselves. If they want to sue the individuals involved, go for it. And it should filed be in the appropriate state court, by the way. They have significant endowments to play with.

    They don’t need assistance from a U.S. prosecutor. That was my first question when this was first announced. Why is a federal prosecutor even doing this?

    • #29
    • February 13, 2020, at 9:50 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  30. Bill Nelson Member

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    Michael Minnott (View Comment):
    Bill, if China “employed” Buttigieg’s brother so as to launder bribe money to influence Pete and/or the U.S. government, then it would be perfectly appropriate for Trump to ask Chinese officials to investigate his brother.

    You jumped ahead to a conviction. China is going to investigate someone. There is no evidence that this person has done anything illegal. And if Pres. Trump thought so, then the DOJ would open an investigation based on evidence of a crime being committed.

    The investigation into the Trump campaign was started without evidence of wrong doing, just suspicion. Trump has no evidence on Hunter Biden, not even a rational suspicion.

    Again, to my question. If China announces an investigation into this fictional brother, and Trump had asked them to do so, is this now ok?

    Sure, if there is credible evidence. For example, a video of someone boasting about manipulating the other country or a person hired to work in an extremely well-paid position with no qualifications besides experience with cocaine. I have seen my share of patronage jobs living in Chicago – Hunter was clearly in the job for his connections, not for any talent.

    Have you considered that for a lot of us, having Trump be less restrained is a good thing? I feel like we live in parallel worlds, or as Jonah would say, a mirror universe.

    China would need no evidence for an investigation, or a conviction. That is the point with Biden and the Ukraine. Trump wanted the Ukraine to do an investigation with no evidence to support such an investigation. Now the Ukrainian justice system is still suspect w/r to these types of activities. If there was credible evidence a crime, under US law, was committed, the DOJ should already being doing an investigation.

    Hunter was clearly in the job for his connections, not for any talent.

    True. And also true for many BOD members of US corporations. BOD members do not make business decisions and require no such business specific knowledge. A board member for GE is an African American woman who is a professor of medicine at Penn.

    …having Trump be less restrained is a good thing?

    Trump wants the DOJ to be political. Many have always suspected that to some level, but to abandon that wholly is dangerous. The corruption in he Ukraine was largely because the justice system was political. And Trump is transferring $3.8B allocated for military weapons and hardware for the wall. Unchecked is good?

     

     

    • #30
    • February 14, 2020, at 8:28 AM PST
    • Like