Blog/Rule of Law
Posted Aug 23, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Any reason why Stormy Daniels has not been charged with blackmail? Why should her attorney not be indicted as a co-conspirator?
ANSWER: This is the problem with the pretend Rule of Law – it does not exist. The courts allow selective prosecution for they claim that there must be prosecutorial discretion because they cannot possibly indict everyone. Prosecutors must have the right to decide who gets indicted and who walks free – Trump v Hillary. Here is the formal explanation by a legal review which states that not even judges have the authority to ask why someone is indicted and another is not. Trust me, the system is corrupt, biased, and lends itself to exactly what we are witnessing. Cohen is indicted for giving money to girls which NOBODY has ever previously determined violate campaign money rules and Hillary who uses a private email and solicits money from the foreign government for her personal charity is above the law and never touched when it was an issue of selling her office of Secretary of State to the highest bidder. A prosecutor has SUPREME POWER and it is NEVER subjected to legal review. It is always about selective prosecution and you throw in politics and you get the most CORRUPT form of government ever devised.
Prosecutorial discretion is a central component of the federal criminal justice system. Prosecutors decide which cases to pursue and plea bargains to accept, determining the fates of the vast majority of criminal defendants who choose not to stand trial. Prosecutors’ decisions are generally not, however, subject to judicial review. According to federal case law, the separation of powers doctrine is the “primary ground” upon which courts abstain from reviewing prosecutorial decisions. The constitutional separation of powers doctrine does not adequately account for expansive prosecutorial discretion. In tracing the federal case law on prosecutorial discretion to the eighteenth century, one can identify a connection between the modern theory of prosecutorial discretion and a writ of English criminal procedure that substantially predated the American separation of powers doctrine.
The Supreme Court has recognized that prosecutorial discretion can really destroy the economy because there is no possible way for you to know if you are violating any law when it is purely discretion. There have been a number of recent Supreme Court cases why the issue faced by the court has been to deal with the interpretation of white collar crimes such as bribery, honest services fraud, and obstruction of justice. The Supreme Court cannot attack the problem by calling it an abuse of discretion so the approach has been to interpret the statutes extremely narrowly to reduce the problem of charging discretion by prosecutors. Hence, they have been interpreting criminal statutes very narrowly because there is no possible way we can trust prosecutors to exercise sound judgment or not to act corruptly. A competitor could be paying bribes to a prosecutor and you are NOT even allowed to investigate a prosecutor.
Justice Kennedy went as far as to take the argument that the Court really should no longer think that prosecutorial discretion as a viable principle in a free society. It opens the door for pure corruption as we are starting to witness. The case was Yates, which was involving the law to go after corporate officers after Enron that prosecutors used to prosecute a Florida fisherman, John L. Yates, for throwing overboard a batch of fish that had been caught illegally because they were allegedly too small, and he wound up with thirty days in jail. Yates was prosecuted using the Enron law? Any act that a prosecutor can twist into a violation of a statue that had nothing to do with what you were doing becomes a tool of tyranny.
The charging decisions in Yates, in particular, may be what led the Justices openly to question whether prosecutors should continue to be entrusted with the same degree of discretion. Cohen has NOT actually violated any law. He pled to an indictment by prosecutors who neither have to prove the law as they interpret is valid or if it can apply to pay two girls actually violates campaign financing. Is this just like Yates and his fish?
The problem we have is that prosecutors can do whatever they want. They get to destroy your life, throw you in prison, and the burden is always on you to prove you have any rights at all. Like Yates, it takes a very long-term and a TON of money to get to the Supreme Court who then says you were correct after all. They can throw you in jail and you can be killed pending a trial just to be heard on your rights. The system of justice does not exist and prosecutorial discretion means we have ZERO rights whatsoever.
Stormy Daniels is a tool. You can bet she is not paying for lawyers. This is a political case to overthrow Trump and as long as they are on the same side as the Deep State, discretion means they can break the law and never be touched like Hillary.