Thursday, October 14, 2010

Richard Blumenthal, the New York Times, and Malicious Prosecution

If there is one thing I can count upon, it is that the New York Times is a cheerleader for prosecutorial lies and abuse. No newspaper did more to promote Mike Nifong's ridiculous and dishonest prosecution than that NYT, which literally claimed championed what defense attorneys ridiculed as a "magic towel" as a piece of important evidence. (This was a towel that magically made Crystal Mangum's DNA disappear.)

However, while the NYT decided that the laws of science were not fit to be applied to the Duke case, the paper gets the greatest joy in watching abusive prosecutions of business figures like Martha Stewart. (Yes, I know that was a popular verdict, but don't forget that the reason Stewart met with the FBI was that prosecutor James Comey's staff was illegally leaking grand jury information to the media in order to try to force Stewart to meet with investigators. The legal penalty for such a crime is five years in prison, but prosecutors, as we know, don't indict themselves for felonies. Just ask Chris Arnt and Len Gregor.)

Today, I briefly look at the case of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the NYT's choice to be the next U.S. Senator from that state. Please keep in mind that this was the same Richard Blumenthal who claimed time and again that he served in Vietnam in the U.S. Armed Forces when, in fact, he was never close to that country.

Like so many other AG's in this country, Blumenthal is a pathological liar, and the malicious case in which he destroyed the life and successful business of Gina Kolb is a case in point.

(To give an example of another "hero" state AG, a guy who threw people in jail after Hurricane Katrina because he disapproved of the prices they charged for some consumer goods, read about Jim Hood of Mississippi, who is about to have a man executed based on testimony that everyone -- including Hood -- knows was utterly fraudulent. THAT is what we have in this country when it comes to prosecutors.)

Here is more about the heroic Blumenthal:
In 2007, the Competitive Enterprise Institute rated Mr. Blumenthal the worst state AG, beating Mr. Spitzer, which takes some doing.

He was the only AG to get failing grades in each of the four categories: using his office to "promote personal gain or enrich cronies or relatives"; "fabricating the law" by asking courts to "rewrite statutes or stretch constitutional norms"; bringing lawsuits "that usurp regulatory powers granted to the federal government or other state entities"; and "seeking to regulate conduct occurring wholly in other states."

Which does not mean Mr. Blumenthal can't show prosecutorial discretion when he wants to. Last year, he went on television to announce that he wouldn't investigate Countrywide Financial's sweetheart loans to Senator Dodd, nonetheless declaring without any probe that "there's no evidence of wrongdoing on [Mr. Dodd's] part."
So, once again, we see that the most "Progressive" people among us -- and few states are more Politically Correct than Connecticut -- are also the people who support malicious prosecution for political reasons. I hate to sound pessimistic, but that is our system of "justice" in the U.S.S.A. There really is none other.

(Hat tip to Ben Shaw)


Doc Ellis said...

Shared on BoN. Tweeted as "Bill Anderson: the most "Progressive" people among us support malicious prosecution for political reasons."

Thank you for writing this

Doc Ellis 124

justiceseeker51 said...

What 'our' country has turned out to be 'sickens' me, and also depresses the H3ll out of me. one alone can not change it. I've tried, believe me HOW I've tried.

Communitites and organizations have to DO something.

Anonymous said...

You mentioned Mississippi. Here is an interesting story out of there:

The Scott Sisters: Two Life Sentences for 11 Dollars?

Anonymous said...

More on that Scott sister story. It appears to be payback because a relative wouldn't go along with official corruption.

Anonymous said...

The New York Times takes this tack when a Great White Defendant is in their sights. Without the GWD, they are not so pro-prosecution.

For that matter, newspapers like the NYT don't cover many trials that "don't fit the narrative."

William L. Anderson said...

I made a comment in the comment section under Herbert's column. Obviously, the Scott Sisters case is troubling because of the way that prosecutors got the witnesses to testify.

Here is the issue: Was the testimony the boys gave true? If it was not -- and there is reason to believe it was not -- then the testimony should not have been suborned, period. As I see it, a prosecutor NEVER is free to suborn perjury. Period. Our troll can accuse me of being "black and white" on this, and he will be correct. Truth is truth, and if he is going to claim it is OK for prosecutors to lie or instruct their witnesses to lie (or to pretend they don't know they are lying), then he is endorsing lies in a court of law.