It’s time to add former federal prosecutors to the nauseatingly long list of professionals and professions who have violated basic ethical principles out of uncontrolled animus towards President Trump.
From the Washington Post:
“More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.
The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.
Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.
“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
…It was posted online Monday afternoon.
This isn’t even a close call. Professionals don’t do this if they have any respect for their profession, whatever it is. Retired doctors don’t sign statements saying that a doctor in a high profile case should have treated the patient differently. Judges, retired or otherwise, don’t sign statements questioning the rulings of other judges. This is one more political hit to bolster “the resistance,” and it ought to be taken as that, and only that. There are thousands of retired federal prosecutors; 370 is large only in the sense that it is embarrassing to the majority that so many are willing to violate their professional norms.
Amusingly, the first signatory named in the Post report is Bill Weld, the former Massachusetts governor who has announced that he will be running against Trump in the primaries. No personal agenda there!
Not one of these ex-prosecutors would have been anything but furious if a crew of former prosecutors challenged the integrity of their professional calls, and with good reason. It is unfair to everyone involved: the President, the Justice Department, the Attorney General, and Mueller, and his team, though I would not be surprised to find that a dissenting member of the investigation was behind this effort.
The opinions of the individuals who signed this mean absolutely nothing, other than their signature impugning their own integrity. Among other things, the report isn’t the investigation itself; the 400 page redacted document is itself a summary. How many of the 370+ even read the entire report? We know they haven’t reviewed all of the transcripts and evidence. My guess is that, at best, most read the second section of the report, which was essentially a law journal explanation of the law of obstruction.
Buried deep in the Post story is the misleading statement that
“The signatures were collected by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, which counts Justice Department alumni among its staff and was contacted about the statement last week by a group of former federal prosecutors, said Justin Vail, an attorney at Protect Democracy.”
No, it’s not a partisan organization, at least not officially and explicitly. Protect Democracy is, however, an anti-Trump organization, an arm of “the resistance,” as a brief perusal of its website will make clear to anyone who examines it. I’d say that a link on the very top of the home page that reads, “Learn more about PEN America v Trump” is fairly self-explanatory, wouldn’t you?
Oddly, the Post doesn’t seem to find this to be something that readers should have pointed out to them. Oddly.
Every ex-prosecutor who signed the statement is accepting the exploitation of this group to advance its political agenda. The depressing episode is just one more large group of passengers jumping on to the Mueller Investigation Ethics Train Wreck.
Ethics Alarms 
Is there a profession or segment of society not corrupted by Trump Derangement Syndrome?
Is there no quarter, no quiet place, away from this mad madding mob?
Being one who has, intuitively, seen through this from the beginning, it is difficult to take dose after dose of their hoaxing crap.
My living room? I should warn you, I’m not the greatest housekeeper on the planet.
I should warn you, dd, I may never leave. Though my wife may object.
I have a spare bed. Can you cook?
I tried to post this on FB – which has until today allowed me to post your links, just without the photo preview. Now I cannot post it at all because it allegedly violates FB community standards. I am sure it won’t do a bit of good, but I wrote FB a nasty letter regarding the matter.
I have for the last three years tried to be cordial and understanding and mostly quiet with the rampant Trump-hating social justice warriors in my life (and there are quite a few) but something happened in the last few weeks that finally threw me over the edge. I am hoping I am not the only one and that my fellow truth supporting friends in hiding (especially the ones in CA) will start speaking up.
I just can’t stand the blatant bullshit anymore.
So weird. Why would that post violate any standards? Very discouraging.
I recently completed a 1-month FB jail sentence for posting an article from the UK concerning some recent clashes between the ever-growing migrant community and the native residents, particularly the loud, often-violent encounters between the migrants and overwhelmed hospital staff when they roll in, en-masse, demanding immediate and preferential treatment. They called it hate-speech, despite the fact that was merely reporting recent events as they occurred, without resorting to editorializing of any sort. Apparently, anything that shines any daylight on The Religion of Peace is hate-speech.
THEY call it the “Religion Of Peace”. If you want to find out what it’s really all about, read Mohammed’s writings…specifically the Koran. Their version of “PEACE” is NOT mine.
“Peace” is a common translation of the term “islam”. I’ve heard argued it can more accurately be translated “submission”.
Better yet, to really understand why Islam is, well, Islam, try reading a version of it that eliminates the endlessly-repeated verses, then puts them in chronological order. Mohammed told his fanatics to sisregardg
Sorry about that. I actually had a seizure, and apparently was smacking around the keyboard just as i was writing “disregard”, and hit the return button.
Anyway: he told them to disregard any of the earlier verses that contradicted the later ones, so if there’s any ambiguity about which parts of the quran take precedent when there is conflict, it’s always the later ones. You need an abridged quran in order to figure out what they’re really about. Trust me; it’s nothing like The New Testament.
Wow! My first sentence has got to be an Ethics Alarms run-on sentence record!
And to think that I wasn’t even trying!
I cut and pasted the link to a friend’s facebook page, in response to his assertion that 370 prosecutors’ decisions/opinions should have any bearing on Barr’s decision to prosecute or not. And he is a criminal defense attorney!
I used to refer clients to him. Not any more. How can I trust his ability to reason if he cannot see past his politically ideological blinders and utilize the very same analysis he should employ while representing his clients in the criminal justice system? How can I? If he is willing to suspend all rules and rights of due process because Trump is horrid, then I will not be able to trust that he will render competent advice and representation to others facing criminal charges. Especially after he said that if Trump is innocent, he should let Mueller testify before Congress. Got that? A criminal defense attorney believes Trump should have no fear whatsoever if he is innocent.
jvb
Would he have any objection to me and some friends rummaging through his personal effects, just in case he’s been engaged in some hitherto-undetected criminal activity that we could report?
I mean, If he hasn’t done anything wrong, what’s he got to hide?
The response was non-responsive, alleging the Mueller and/or Barr didn’t think a auttibg President can be indicted. He didnt address the larger issue of Comey’s statement that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute on those facts.
jvb
Maybe these are folks looking to get back into government service if Trump gets pushed out next year? Remember how all those security people signed the letter saying Trump must not become president during the 2016 campaign? I am almost certain that a good number of them were signing it as a way to hopefully land a post in a Hillary administration.
Funny, I thought it was Comey that said no prosecuter would bring charges against HRC. I dont recall Barr saying that no prosecutor could get a conviction although I suppose that is what he meant. The fact is the appointed special prosecutor chose not to bring charges means nothing to these junior attorneys. Mueller could have stated that he would have recommended charges based on the evidence- but he did not. Case closed.
What troubles me is given that these lawyers would attempt to use their former justice department roles as evidence of authority, and that their opinions might be swayed by their political leanings, could cases they successfully tried be called into question by the fact that the just demonstrated their lack of concern for evaluating the actual evidence simply to advance their personal desires
Imagine the conundrum if Trump were Black
Good shot, Chris.
Maybe he is, apart from the mere fact of skin hue! When I was a teenager, I saw an albino Yoruba two or three times among the crowd on the streets of Lagos. Strangely, his colour had ended up with orange hair and a slightly orange-ish complexion, all on top of typical Yoruba features and clothing (which he had colour co-ordinated to be orange too). So maybe Trump is an albino Yoruba.
If Muller himself wouldn’t bring charges, what makes these people think charges should have been brought? I really hope congress interviews Muller.
blah blah blah progressives being biased. Nothing to see here.
This indifference is what will sink the Democrats: they have overplayed a stupid hand and people are noticing.
The statute HIllary could have been charged under was a strict liability statute and did not require intent, unlike obstruction of justice. Comey’s own statement acknowledged she violated the terms of the statute but then made up an intent requirement. Let’s ask each of the signatories whether they would have filed in Hillary’s case.
Very good question! Comey would probably just make up a “double-standard” provision, though.