The Corrupt Kingdom Of Lawyers
If you or I were to commit a crime that became known to law enforcement or other agents of the criminal justice system, one could reasonably expect that we would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Although it may be unlikely to occur, should the average person happen to be so inclined, the fear of consequences is usually sufficient to dissuade most from engaging in criminal activity.
It was revealed this month that Congress has long maintained a taxpayer-funded slush fund to settle cases of sexual misconduct brought against its members.
Referencing two prominent Democratic politicians who’ve been swept up in the recent sexual misconduct revelation frenzy and now face numerous related allegations, National Public Radio’s Cokie Roberts revealed this week that the female press corps has been covering up sexual misconduct on Capitol Hill “for years.”
Inasmuch as most members of the Washington press corps are fire-breathing liberals and presumably support feminist causes, this is singularly appalling.
Ms. Roberts’ disclosure was also an explicit affirmation that those who comprise the Washington press corps are abject failures as journalists as well as manifestly corrupt.
Still, Americans are characteristically stunned when they learn such things as Congress having taken measures to protect its members from prosecution for insider trading, a crime for which we plebeians are typically ensconced under the penitentiary.
Sidney Powell, a federal appellate attorney and former federal prosecutor was featured on conservative commentator Sean Hannity’s radio show on Monday.
During the course of the interview to promote Powell’s new book on corruption in the Department of Justice, Powell made some startling revelations about the elitist and profoundly unethical modality in which many in the criminal justice system operate.
A chief focus of the interchange between Powell and Hannity was the recent enlistment of Andrew Weissmann by Robert Mueller, the special counsel conducting an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links to the Trump campaign.
Weissmann was the FBI’s general counsel while Mueller was FBI director and could accurately be called a rock star prosecutor.
Weissmann’s methods, however, have been cited as highly unethical by the New York Times (no less), and would be illegal if employed by anyone other than a prosecutor.
Defendants in several high-profile cases in which Weissmann obtained convictions were later exonerated upon appeal, and it can be proven that Weissmann was aware of their innocence all along.
Obviously, this is of great concern to anyone who is interested in an equitable disposition in the “Russian collusion” case, and any others in which Mueller’s probe is involved.
As Powell pointed out, criminal prosecutors are immune from legal repercussions in the event that a convicted defendant is later found to be innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.
The reason for this convention is to prevent an open season on prosecutors for misfeasance should they happen to make a mistake and the reluctance on the part of prosecutors to prosecute cases effectively for fear of such reprisals.
Unfortunately, as attrition has claimed more and more of our society’s moral underpinnings, we have seen increasing corruption in every sector, and this includes criminal prosecutors from the local to federal levels.
An individual I have known for many years was a local criminal prosecutor who once withheld exculpatory evidence in a high-profile murder case.
As a result, a man spent 10 years in prison for a murder he did not commit.
I don’t know whether it was political pressure, the quest for high conviction rates, rationalization (they were so convinced in their own minds he was guilty that the methods didn’t matter), or plain old self-serving evil that contributed to the prosecutors’ actions, and it really isn’t important.
When DNA evidence finally cleared the imprisoned man, although the city wound up paying the defendant a hefty settlement for its employees’ actions, there was never any legal proceeding initiated against my acquaintance or the colleague who conspired with this person.
It is for this reason that I remain opposed to the death penalty: Mistakes are made, lies are told, and it happens far more often than we would like to believe.
One innocent American executed as a result of prosecutorial misconduct is one too many, in my opinion.
We are now seeing the deep corruption of lawmakers and those who ostensibly uphold the law revealed across the continuum of government – from Congress, to federal special prosecutors, to those who administer local laws.
In truth, it appears that we are poised for enslavement by a class of people whose chief commonality is that they all hold law degrees.
It may be difficult for citizens who support law enforcement and the criminal justice system in principle to endorse implementing the measures that will be necessary to hold those in the system accountable.
We want to trust our police, prosecutors and judges, and we like to believe that they respect the solemn oaths they take upon assuming their offices.
We trusted our politicians, however, perhaps against our better judgment at times, and the results were nearly catastrophic.
Failure to hold accountable those who craft and administer the law is the perfect environment for a police state to flourish – and for anyone who may have forgotten, in the context of our Constitution, a police state is, by definition, a criminal enterprise.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush