Constitutional Expert Rips Feds for ‘Stench of Selective Prosecution’

This article originally appeared on

Guest by post by Bob Unruh 

‘There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity’

Long have there been charges that there are two tiers of justice in America: One for leftists and liberals and one for those who are more conservative. For example, the government’s failure to charge Hillary Clinton after she posted national secrets on an unsecured web server in her home.

Others have gone to jail for far less.

Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, historically has discounted the idea that the identity of the suspect would determine the attacks by the feds.

But in an online column, he explained, “It is becoming harder to deny the existence of a two-track system of justice in the country as commentators and even a few courts raise concerns over the role of politics in prosecutions.

“For years, conservatives have objected that there is a two-tier system of justice in this country. I have long resisted such claims, but it has become increasingly difficult to deny the obvious selective prosecution in a variety of recent cases and opinions.”

For example, he noted, there’s the recent scandal in Georgia where Democrat Fulton County DA Fani Willis was accused of financially benefiting from the fact she hired, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700,000, her paramour to create an organized crime case against President Trump and others, then took exotic vacations with him as part of their relationship.

The paramour, Nathan Wade, now has been removed from the case. But Willis remains.

Citing the “odor of mendacity” referenced by play author Tennessee Williams in “Cat on a Hot Tim Roof,” Turley said, “That odor was particularly strong after the hearings indicated that Wade may have committed perjury in his earlier divorce case, and that both Willis and Wade were credibly accused of lying on the stand about when their relationship began.

“They are prosecuting defendants in the Trump case accused of the same underlying conduct, including 19 individual counts of false statements, false filings or perjury.”

But there’s more, he said.

That “odor” is coming from multiple courtrooms around the country, and now is “becoming intolerable for many Americans as selective prosecution is being raised in a wide array of cases.”

He cited the “strong” evidence against President Trump for having government documents at Mar-a-Lago.

“However, the recent decision of Special Counsel Robert Hur not to bring criminal charges against President Joe Biden has undermined even that case. Hur described four decades of Biden serially violating laws governing classified documents. The evidence included Biden telling a third party that he had classified material in his house and actually reading from a classified document to his non-cleared ghostwriter,” he said. “There is evidence of an effort to destroy evidence and later an effort of the White House to change the report.”

Hur recommended against charging Biden because of his “diminished” capacities.

But special counsel Jack Smith, running virtually the same charges against Trump, now “is absurdly in conflict with the treatment Biden is receiving.”

And then, in New York, lawmakers changed their own law to let Trump be sued over financial dealings in which no one lost any money, he said.

The AG there, Letitia James, essentially campaigned on a pledge of “selectively” prosecuting Trump.

Not to be left behind, “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has also come up with an unprecedented way of using a state law to effectively prosecute Trump for a federal offense that the Justice Department has already rejected,” Turley noted.

On the other side, the DOJ proposed a “ridiculous” plea bargain for Hunter Biden “that would have allowed for no jail time and a sweeping immunity agreement…”

And, Turley wrote, it’s not just Trump.

“In California, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an opinion that found such evidence of selective prosecution against conservative groups. In considering a far-right group, Carney noted that the Justice Department has had sharply different approaches based on the political views of the defendants.”

Carney ruled, “Such selective prosecution leaves the troubling impression that the government believes speech on the left more deserving of protection than speech on the right,” something the Constitution forbids.

He said, “FBI Director James Comey received similar gentle treatment after removing FBI material and arranging for information to be leaked to the media. Meanwhile, defendants such as Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were pursued relentlessly for making false statements to investigators under Comey’s watch.”

Copyright 2024 WND News Center

The post Constitutional Expert Rips Feds for ‘Stench of Selective Prosecution’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *