New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg has certainly gotten everyone excited with his application for the Beria gambit. His “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” approach to election interference – while calling it law enforcement – has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. He has even triggered the Republicans to propose legislation protecting current and former presidents from politically motivated prosecution.
Unfortunately, the proposed legislation fails the same logic test that almost all gun control proposals fail. Advocates of gun control can never explain how their proposals would have prevented the last headline shooting. Similarly, the Republican proposal would not have prevented the Alvin Bragg circus either. It won’t fix the issue because it ignores the root problem.
The No More Political Prosecutions Act (NMPPA), proposed by Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.), would grant indicted presidents a right to an automatic change of venue if desired. It would give former presidents the ability to neuter a crusading rogue local official and move their case to a federal court. Unfortunately, even if the act were to pass and survive a presidential veto, it wouldn’t fix anything.
We should ask the same questions about this act that conservatives use when debating gun control. Would the proposed act have prevented Alvin Bragg from using the power of his office to interfere with an election? There are at least five reasons why this act fails to address the problem of government weaponization for political purposes.
Number 1
Processes to assemble grand juries, indict offenders, and try defendants before local juries are merely tools granted to local District Attorneys (DAs). As with gun control arguments, the problem isn’t the tools, but the person wielding those tools.
Our root problem is that we have rogue law enforcement officials who are willing to use their tools for illegal purposes – such as violating a person’s civil rights for political purposes. They do so with impunity because they face no consequences for their offenses. The solution isn’t to take their tools away. It’s to hold them accountable for the oath they swore to us.
If we have an Alvin Bragg problem, disarming all DAs, including the ethical ones, is not the solution. If Bragg violated Donald Trump’s (or our) civil liberties, he should go to jail for it. Fortunately, there’s already a criminal statute against such an offense – MISCONDUCT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT & OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTORS -- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 USC §242).
Unfortunately, the statute can only be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is also violating our civil rights – under the color of law, for political purposes. The act will not fix that.
Number 2
Assuming the act was in place, and Trump exercised his right to a change of venue after his indictment, his case would be moved to a federal court, where the prosecution would be conducted by a U.S. attorney – working for Merrick Garland. Would Donald Trump’s civil rights be better protected with this change of venue?
Given that our corrupt two-tiered justice system remains unaddressed, the act will not prevent future unequal applications of the law.
Number 3
The act will provide an extra layer of protection for presidents who may actually be criminals. Is that what we really want – some citizens having “special” protection?
Let’s say hypothetically, that some ex-president were to commit an actual crime at a location with an ethical DA. He becomes indicted in that locale for a crime committed there and exercises his right to a change of venue. Would transferring his case to a system operated by political partisans result in justice? Do we really wish to tie the hands of local DAs in a situation such as this – where a real crime was committed?
Number 4
The bigger problem isn’t that conservative presidents face political persecution. It’s that all of us not aligned with big government politics face political persecution. Observe the treatment of the January 6 defendants. The Trump indictment and the January 6 prosecutions are symptoms of the same political illness.
Giving former presidents an extra layer of protection fails to address the actual problem. Our Constitution is becoming irrelevant because government officials at all levels are empowered to ignore it. The proposed act leaves that problem unaddressed. It treats the symptom without excising the tumor.
Number 5
When it comes to attacking our constitutionally protected rights, local DAs are strictly “bush league.” The real pros are our “public servants” at the DOJ and FBI – the very people charged with protecting our rights. The list of protected rights that they have not protected is legion, and growing by the day. Our “protectors” have in fact attacked our:
- Freedom of speech (FBI agents assigned to censor Twitter),
- Freedom of religion (Confidential informants placed in the Catholic Church),
- Freedom of assembly (DOJ intimidation of pro-life protesters),
- Freedom of the press (FBI raid of Project Veritas reporter homes),
- And freedom from unlawful search and surveillance (FBI fabricated evidence for a FISA warrant).
Rep. Fry’s bill would merely turn presidential prosecutions over to the worst offenders. Is a political prosecution of some future ex-president prevented when it is placed in the hands of the people who gave us the Russian collusion hoax and the Mueller investigation?
Clearly, Fry’s legislation will not prevent the political prosecution of former presidents. It can’t solve the perceived problem, because the perceived problem isn’t the actual problem – government corruption. His bill satisfies the emotional craving to “do something.” But the “something” it does will not prevent a reoccurrence of the issue.
I have a counter-proposal. Don’t attack the tools. Attack the criminals who use those tools for illegal purposes. Rather than weakening a state’s power to hold presidents accountable, strengthen every state’s power to hold all government officials accountable – at the federal, state, and local levels.
In our system of governance, the distribution of power is always more consistent with maintaining our freedom than further consolidation of power at the federal level. Fix the root problem with either a legislative or constitutional change, authorizing the states to enforce the “Color of Law” statute (18 USC §242). It can be done by Congress, or via a Convention of States to propose amendments.
Let’s apply our gun control logic and see if this proposal would have affected the Bragg indictment of Donald Trump. If states were empowered to prosecute violations of our constitutionally protected rights, would Alvin Bragg have still indicted Trump for a crime that he is unable to articulate?
Let me ask that another way. Would Alvin Bragg have violated Donald Trump’s civil rights if Florida officials could prosecute Bragg, and incarcerate him in a Florida penitentiary, for violating the rights of a Floridian?
Empowering the states is the solution to our loss of constitutionally protected rights. Taking away the playthings of local district attorneys is not.
