Former Federal Prosecutor Kirschner “Guarantees” Trump Prosecution on Evidence Available

0
49


Prosecutors within DOJ, all over the country in U.S. Attorneys’ offices, have a combined charge to conviction ratio above 99% convictions. At first, that might seem like the most incredible stat one has ever heard, and consider federal prosecutors the best in the world, almost too good. But while federal prosecutors are (generally speaking) very very good, the stat above should embarrass them. It means they are not taking enough tough cases. It means they only charge people that they already have convicted without a shadow of a doubt. It is actually a stat that reflects a fearful office, fear of ever losing even in the face of obvious injustice.

But when a former federal prosecutor “guarantees” a victory on the basis of the evidence against someone, one should probably take him or her at their word. Because they don’t lose, which is exactly Glenn Kirschner’s point when he appeared with radio host Dean Obeidallah and said that he could “guarantee” a conviction given the current evidence against former President Donald Trump.

[L]et’s remember it goes all the way back to April when Donald Trump said “listen, in the unlikely event I lose it will be a product of fraud.”

Obviously, there was no good faith basis to say the election would be fraudulent– it was still six months away at that point. He was softening the ground for his attempt to steal the election.

I mean all of this Dean, you know this is understandable to a third grader if you put it together. You give me three hours in front of a DC jury I guarantee you they will vote guilty for Donald Trump having tried to corruptly steal a presidential election. The evidence is overwhelming, it’s incontrovertible and all we need is some strong prosecutors to step up and bring the darn case in court.

Well.

Those of us who are nowhere near as good or experienced lawyers as Glenn Kirschner don’t doubt his statement. Our doubts lay in whether any strong prosecutors exist (and have the authority) to step in and bring the “darn case in court.”

As we noted above, far from being invulnerable and unbeatable, they are actually timid and fear losing more than they feel the need to take a shot at justice even in circumstances where they don’t have as much evidence as they “wish” they had.

With Trump, it is not a matter of volume, it’s whether they want to lose, either in court or in public. Someone needs to ask Merrick Garland exactly how much more evidence does he need to prove Trump committed a crime.

 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here