berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 36,491
- 29,668
- 2,820
...........slow down long enough to fully consider the consequences of a single story?
When a grand juror asked Mecklenburg if the feds had âunlimited triesâ as she and a colleague sought charges against the six people who demonstrated outside a suburban immigration facility, Mecklenburg replied, âI donât think we have to worry about that.â
And on the very first day, when she told the panel she had a âvery interesting case,â she urged the grand jurors to âtrustâ her. She said, âI would never ask you to charge somebody if I didnât think there was probable cause,â adding, âI donât charge people unless Iâm absolutely sure.â
Those are just a few examples of the alleged prosecutorial misconduct revealed Tuesday by the extraordinary release of transcripts from the normally secret grand jury proceedings that led to the tainted âBroadview Sixâ conspiracy indictment. U.S. District Judge April Perry, who discovered the improprieties last month, authorized the transcriptsâ release Tuesday afternoon.
chicago.suntimes.com
Federal prosecutors have decided to drop all remaining criminal charges against four people indicted in October after protesting outside a suburban Chicago immigration detention center in the latest such case to unravel for the Trump administration.
Andrew Boutros (why does he still have a job?), a US attorney, made the announcement on Thursday after a meeting about redactions made by prosecutors to a set of grand jury transcripts.
Boutros told the US district judge April Perry he had learned of what happened three weeks earlier.
Perry said she was âincredibly shockedâ by the governmentâs redactions, and that she had never seen the âtypes of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts."
www.theguardian.com
Where to begin? I guess I'll start by saying I think this one case, this one story, is emblematic of what has happened to the DoJ in the last year and a half. And that it stands out for a couple of reasons. One being the transcripts are unequivocal evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Second, as far as I have been able to ascertain, no DoJ employee has been held to account for the misconduct. Which in and of itself is extremely revealing.
What are the potential ramifications of this matter? Well, it raises the question of whether the DoJ's attorneys have engaged in similar misconduct in other instances when it sought an indictment. Like in the case of Jim Comey. The commentary that follows sums it up.
There was a time when working for the United States Department of Justice might have been a lawyerâs dream. Speaking on behalf of the United States, working with people who were dedicated to preserving the rule of law and upholding the highest standards of professionalism, not a bad gig.
As Harvard Law School once explained, the department offered lawyers an unparalleled âopportunity to serve the public in a meaningful way while carrying out the Department of Justiceâs (DOJ) mandate to âpursue justiceâ every dayâŚâ Not a bad gig.
But that was then.
We know by now that the Trump Justice Department seems to have a new mission: Do what the president tells you. Accomplish what he wants you to accomplish, by hook or by crook if necessary.
Our democracy and the rule of law depend on the integrity and judgment of the public officials responsible for preserving them. While it is not a sexy political issue, voters should demand that those running for Congress in November prioritize restoring professionalism to the Justice Department.
They should be asked to ensure that the department again embraces three core principles: No investigations or prosecutions for political purposes. Respect for the judicial process and, as former Attorney General Robert Jackson once said about the role of the federal prosecutor, âwhile you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement, you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.â
Justice Department lawyers who violate those principles must pay a steep price for doing so. And the department's internal culture needs revitalization. Congress created the department and gave it its mandate. Congress has the responsibility to clarify that the departmentâs mandate is to serve justice and respect the rule of law.
thefulcrum.us
So, with the facts of this shameful matter in hand, I'd just like ask trump's supporters to take a moment and consider what I think is the most salient point to take away from all of this.
Our democracy and the rule of law depend on the integrity and judgment of the public officials responsible for preserving them.
Something very important is lost when that gets broken. And it is truly broken.
Transcripts reveal tension, improprieties during âBroadview 6â grand jury hearings
Nine minutes into her second attempt to secure an indictment against the group of Operation Midway Blitz protesters who would become known as the âBroadview Six,â Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg excused a grand juror who called the case a âcrock of sh--.âWhen a grand juror asked Mecklenburg if the feds had âunlimited triesâ as she and a colleague sought charges against the six people who demonstrated outside a suburban immigration facility, Mecklenburg replied, âI donât think we have to worry about that.â
And on the very first day, when she told the panel she had a âvery interesting case,â she urged the grand jurors to âtrustâ her. She said, âI would never ask you to charge somebody if I didnât think there was probable cause,â adding, âI donât charge people unless Iâm absolutely sure.â
Those are just a few examples of the alleged prosecutorial misconduct revealed Tuesday by the extraordinary release of transcripts from the normally secret grand jury proceedings that led to the tainted âBroadview Sixâ conspiracy indictment. U.S. District Judge April Perry, who discovered the improprieties last month, authorized the transcriptsâ release Tuesday afternoon.
Transcripts reveal tension, improprieties during âBroadview 6â grand jury hearings
U.S. District Judge April Perry discovered the improprieties last month and authorized the transcriptsâ release Tuesday afternoon. One grand juror was excused by an assistant U.S. attorney after the juror called the case âa crock of sh- -.â
chicago.suntimes.com
Federal prosecutors have decided to drop all remaining criminal charges against four people indicted in October after protesting outside a suburban Chicago immigration detention center in the latest such case to unravel for the Trump administration.
Andrew Boutros (why does he still have a job?), a US attorney, made the announcement on Thursday after a meeting about redactions made by prosecutors to a set of grand jury transcripts.
Boutros told the US district judge April Perry he had learned of what happened three weeks earlier.
Perry said she was âincredibly shockedâ by the governmentâs redactions, and that she had never seen the âtypes of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts."
All charges against Chicago protesters dropped in latest ICE case to unravel
Prosecutors may face sanctions over redactions to grand jury transcripts linked to four of âBroadview Sixâ defendants
www.theguardian.com
Where to begin? I guess I'll start by saying I think this one case, this one story, is emblematic of what has happened to the DoJ in the last year and a half. And that it stands out for a couple of reasons. One being the transcripts are unequivocal evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Second, as far as I have been able to ascertain, no DoJ employee has been held to account for the misconduct. Which in and of itself is extremely revealing.
What are the potential ramifications of this matter? Well, it raises the question of whether the DoJ's attorneys have engaged in similar misconduct in other instances when it sought an indictment. Like in the case of Jim Comey. The commentary that follows sums it up.
There was a time when working for the United States Department of Justice might have been a lawyerâs dream. Speaking on behalf of the United States, working with people who were dedicated to preserving the rule of law and upholding the highest standards of professionalism, not a bad gig.
As Harvard Law School once explained, the department offered lawyers an unparalleled âopportunity to serve the public in a meaningful way while carrying out the Department of Justiceâs (DOJ) mandate to âpursue justiceâ every dayâŚâ Not a bad gig.
But that was then.
We know by now that the Trump Justice Department seems to have a new mission: Do what the president tells you. Accomplish what he wants you to accomplish, by hook or by crook if necessary.
Our democracy and the rule of law depend on the integrity and judgment of the public officials responsible for preserving them. While it is not a sexy political issue, voters should demand that those running for Congress in November prioritize restoring professionalism to the Justice Department.
They should be asked to ensure that the department again embraces three core principles: No investigations or prosecutions for political purposes. Respect for the judicial process and, as former Attorney General Robert Jackson once said about the role of the federal prosecutor, âwhile you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement, you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.â
Justice Department lawyers who violate those principles must pay a steep price for doing so. And the department's internal culture needs revitalization. Congress created the department and gave it its mandate. Congress has the responsibility to clarify that the departmentâs mandate is to serve justice and respect the rule of law.
Is There Anything That Trumpâs Justice Department Lawyers Wonât Do?
There was a time when working for the United States Department of Justice might have been a lawyerâs dream. Speaking on behalf of the United States, working with people who were dedicated to preserving the rule of law and upholding the highest standards of professionalism, not a bad gig.As...
thefulcrum.us
So, with the facts of this shameful matter in hand, I'd just like ask trump's supporters to take a moment and consider what I think is the most salient point to take away from all of this.
Our democracy and the rule of law depend on the integrity and judgment of the public officials responsible for preserving them.
Something very important is lost when that gets broken. And it is truly broken.
