F
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If someone breaks the law, and you prosecute, that's not (necessarily) selective prosecution or using prosecution as a political tool. We all have seen Mueller operate and understand that it's possibly to run a professional, unpoliticized investigation and prosecution. The fact that criminals will complain that they are being singled out does not mean that they are being singled out or are not criminals. Consider, for example, the prosecution of Dinesh D'Souza. He did what he did, and had no defense. So he got nailed. He complained that he was being singled out, but that was a load of crap, and the criminal justice system did its job. Floodgates were not opened.
|
Selective prosecution is the most vile of practices. Few abuses degrade public faith in our Property Protection System more.
I know numerous people who got caught doing what Martha Stewart did with much larger dollars. Penalties, warnings, fines, and disgorgement was all they received. I’ve known and known of several individuals with six and even seven figure tax evasions who negotiated repayments in lieu of prosecution. Common theme? None were famous. None political.
How many people cut deals in the Swiss bank scandal a few years back? How about the Panama Papers?
D’Souza was a high profile scalp. That’d almost never happen to a nobody.
Prosecutorial discretion is one of the last few utterly unchecked powers. And it’s one of those most in need of aggressive oversight.
For further reading, do a news search on Jeffrey Epstein.
