Tag Archives: Attorney General

What Were You Thinking?

In his testimony about the Mueller Report, Attorney General William Barr explained his reasons for thinking it is not possible to charge Mr Trump with a crime. The key reason being that the prosecutor would not be able to demonstrate “intent”. According to Mr Barr the only way to charge an individual with a crime is if you can prove an “intent” to commit a crime. Even if the person’s own words suggest intent, unless he is explicit that he wants to commit a crime, there can be no trial. Therefore, no indictment is even possible.

This news reached the prisons and defense lawyers around the nation and they responded with glee. Parties were held. Fireworks were set off on Riker’s Island. The fix was in.  No intent, no crime.

So, let’s imagine for a moment that Attorney General Barr, once he is ousted from his current role, becomes a trial judge. Defense attorneys are lining up to have their cases heard before the learned justice.

Case # 1. Johnny Dillinger

Prosecutor: Your honor, the state will show that Mr Dillinger planned and implemented a number of bank robberies. He used the “Lamm technique” of casing a bank, planning a getaway route and then robbing said bank. He was successful and was found with the money. Other members of his gang have admitted to helping him rob banks. The evidence is overwhelming.

Counsel for the Defense: Your honor, the defense admits that Mr Dillinger did plan and execute said robberies. However, it is up to the state to prove “intent”. There is no proof that Mr Dillinger even knew that taking money from a bank was a crime. I mean, he’s not a lawyer familiar with the intricacies of the law. Furthermore, the “intent” of his actions was not to commit a crime, only to obtain money. Money all of us need to live. He saw the bank and thought that the money in the bank would assist him in providing for his family. If robbing banks was not against the law, no crime would have been committed. My client never, in his wildest imagination , “intended” to commit a crime. He only wanted money. Just like everyone else. I move for immediate dismissal of all charges for lack of evidence of “intent”.

Judge Barr: Well argued . The court agrees that while Mr Dillinger may have committed these “crimes”, there is no way to determine whether he “intended” to commit crimes or just wanted money for his family. Case dismissed.

Case #2: Ted Bundy

Prosecutor: Your honor, the state will prove that Mr Ted Bundy committed at least 30 homicides between 1974 and 1978. Included are charges of multiple rapes, kidnapping and necrophilia. He is a serial killer who is the most brutal sociopath and should never again be released to society. . We have the forensic evidence . We will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Counsel for the Defense: Your honor, the defense admits that Mr Bundy did, in fact, take some of the actions noted by the state. We ask you to consider, however, the “intent” of Mr Bundy. Did he kidnap? Yes. Did he rape? Yes. Did he murder? Yes. But what is the real question? In our mind the ONLY question is this: Did Mr Bundy “intend” to break the law?

When Mr Bundy was kidnapping and raping and murdering was he “intending” to break the law? Or was he just intending to rape ? And kidnap? And murder? If rape and murder were not against the law would Mr Bundy even be subjected to this trial? Nowhere in the state’s case does it prove that Mr Bundy “intended ” to break any laws. Just the opposite. He wanted to follow the law, but his sociopathic desires would not allow him to. In his mind, he “intended ” to do whatever was legal. So, your honor, we are requesting an immediate dismissal of the charges based on the fact that no criminal “intent” was proved by the state.

Judge Barr: Excellent legal analysis. While it is clear that Mr Bundy murdered and raped over 30 individuals, the state did not provide any evidence that Mr Bundy intended to break the law. With this lack of intent I am disturbed that the prosecution has even brought the case against this honorable man. Complete exoneration. Case dismissed .

Case #3: LeRoy Jones

Prosecutor: You honor, Mr Jones was found with 2 bottles of baby formula in his possession , not paid for in the grocery store. This is a misdemeanor and we suggest 2 weeks in jail and a $100 fine.

Counsel for the Defense: We concur with the prosecution and plead guilty.

Judge Barr: Outrageous conduct. Stealing is a major crime. Not only did he take baby formula, he obviously intended to break the law. The days of coddling criminals are over. I sentence the criminal to 1 year in prison and a $1000 fine.  Let that be a lesson to all who would “intend” to break the law.

 

 

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under crime, government, police, Politics, Senate, Trump, United States

Have We Ever Met?

As soon as the Democrats whupped Donald Trump in the midterms he immediately fired Jeff Sessions, his Attorney General.

Jeff Sessions was lockstep in implementing all of Trump’s policies. He refused to act on any voter suppression cases. He refused to enforce the Voting Rights Act. He refused to enforce environmental laws. A Trumpster all the way.

Jeff Sessions was the first US Senator to endorse Trump. He was the first Senator to wear that goofy hat. Like Trump, he has a long history of racial discrimination. Birds of a feather.

BUT, following the required law, Sessions had to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller probe. Because he, himself, had met with Russians and later lied about it. This made Trump mad. Not the meeting part. Not the lying part. The recusal part.

So, another in a long line of Trump sycophants is thrown under the bus. Or out the window of Trump Tower. Into the Trump fecal pond. So be it.

Now, Trump has appointed a new acting Attorney General (emphasis on “acting”). A Fox news guy who has long held that the Supreme Court is not allowed to interfere with the president. That the president is above the law.

OK. So he is a Trump stooge. What else is new?

Well, according to Trump this guy is a great man. People in the White House say he is a man who Trump has met with a number of times. A man highly respected. They get along real good. Or, do they ? Uh…wait a minute.

Well, Trump, who just appointed this totally unqualified weight lifter to become the HIGHEST attorney in the land  NOW claims he doesn’t even know the guy.

“Who are you? Do I know you? Wanna be Attorney General? Okey dokey, you got the job. Gotta run. ”

He just appointed this complete stranger to the leadership of the Department of Justice.

According to the NY Times ..the “FAILING” NY Times….

“Mr. Whitaker, who now oversees the investigation, has visited the Oval Office several times and is said to have an easy chemistry with the president, according to people familiar with the relationship.

“I don’t know Matt Whitaker,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he left Washington for a weekend trip to Paris. “Matt Whitaker is a very highly respected man.””

Appointing someone he does not even know. Hmmm. If it were true it just might be a step in the right direction.

4 Comments

Filed under Constitution, GOP, Politics, Republicans, Society, Supreme Court, Trump, United States