DimWit Politics

Nixon Prosecutor Returns From Obscurity to Take on Trump

 Breaking News
  • Trump’s Mysterious Friend The fabled Rumpelstiltskin was said to be able to spin straw into gold. The tale has been around for about 4000 years – give or take a century or two...
  • Is a 4-Day School Week in America’s Future? Colorado School District 27J is following a growing trend in public school education — switching over to a four-day school week – giving kids Monday off and a three-day weekend....
  • Democratic Senator Colluded with Russian Oligarch Text messages leaked to the media in February prove that Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) sought a meeting with Christopher Steele (author of the anti-Trump dossier) as part of the Senate...
  • The Kaepernick Curse With the kick-off of the football season, the National Football League is once again steeped in a fan-fleeing controversy over players taking a knee during the National Anthem. The NFL,...
  • Info Wars and MSNBC Before getting to the gist of this commentary, I have to say that I am very serious about the subject matter. I am not trying to create some bizarre or...

Nixon Prosecutor Returns From Obscurity to Take on Trump

Nixon Prosecutor Returns From Obscurity to Take on Trump
March 23
17:02 2018

Jill Wine-Banks entered the pantheon of public personalities way back in the early 1970s as a youthful member of the legal team prosecuting the impeachment of President Richard Nixon – after which came more than forty years of relative obscurity.  With the hope of impeaching yet another president, Wine-Banks has re-emerged as a frequent panelist on the CNN/MSNBC media tag team.

In her capacity as credibility booster for the anti-Trump narrative, Wine-Banks falls into the “I don’t know, but …” category.  She readily admits that she does not know if there is any evidence of collusion but proposes the case that there is – at least by intimation.  She does not know what is in the non-partisan reports of the FBI Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility but is sure that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was dismissed unfairly.  She continues to promote the media’s year-long, and hitherto inaccurate, prediction of the firing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

In her analysis, Wine-Banks perpetuates the same smugness that permeates much of the inside-the-bubble reporting.  You know, the FBI never succumbs to politics. (Hmmm.  Why did J. Edgar Hoover suddenly pop into my mind?) The highly partisan political activities of the Mueller team will not influence their judgment – even though the original number two man had to be booted for overlapping his political views with his FBI duties.

Even as Wine-Banks offers up one factless opinion and speculation after another, she channels the cliché line of Sgt. Joe Friday on the old Dragnet television series: “I just want the facts.  Just the facts.”

Though billed as a prominent legal expert, she uses the media language of “collusion” to cast a shadow of criminality on the Trump administration when any first-year law student understands that collusion is not a crime.  Since she is smart enough to know better, one must assume that it is intentional.

In a recent television appearance, Wine-Banks peddled another fiction to bolster the collusion aspect of the Mueller investigation.  She assured the audience that Mueller will only go where the evidence and facts lead him.  He will be seeking only the truth “because that is what prosecutors do.”

Did you catch that?  Prosecutors only seek the truth.  Really?  In what alternative judicial universe has Wine-Banks been living in during her post-Watergate years?  Prosecutors build their reputation on indicting and convicting people.  They represent one side of the courtroom drama.  They use the unfairness of the grand jury process to indict – a process so one-sided that the insider joke claims a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. 

Conversely, a prosecutor can ignore a mountain of facts and not bring an indictment.  It is called “prosecutorial discretion.”  It is used frequently where the prosecutors are part of powerful political machines.  I have seen it used in numerous cases in Chicago and Cook County were prosecutors refused to “take up” cases against political institutions and allies despite the volume of evidence.

Following an indictment, the prosecutor stacks the facts and spins them to prove to a judge or jury that the defendant is guilty.  They use every courtroom trick to make sure only their evidence gets admitted.  In far too many cases, they engage in prosecutorial abuse by going after political enemies, concealing exculpating evidence and coaching witnesses.  While such abuses can be subject to professional or criminal punishment, they are fairly common because they are rarely pursued.  Why?  Because the decision to pursue is up to fellow prosecutors or lawyer-controlled regulatory agencies.

When Wine-Banks claims that prosecutors are only interested in getting the facts, that is nothing less than preposterous  and bogus image-polishing … to be precise … b.s.

About Author

Larry Horist

Larry Horist

Larry Horist is a conservative activist with an extensive background in economics, public policy and politics. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman, as well as the White House. He has testified as an expert witness before legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress, and lectured at major colleges and universities. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He can be reached at lph@thomasandjoyce.com.

3 Comments

  1. Bill
    Bill March 26, 21:43

    You conveniently leave out the fact that she was also General Counsel to the United Stars Army. I am a retired 50+ year criminal Dfense Lawyer with over 500 felony Jury trials. I have also argued before the United States Supreme Court as lead Counsel for the Petitioner. Finally a 30 year member of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers. May I ask what your bona fides are? Not being allergic to kool aid? Just a reckless disregard for the truth. Remember when you opine, as Justice Brandeis said “sunlight is the best disinfectant”! I don’t Ms Wine-Banks just revile against conservative pundits with a reckless disregard for the truth. Any more, my email is below.

    Reply to this comment
  2. Testosteron
    Testosteron April 22, 19:57

    Good post however , I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on this subject?
    I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more.
    Bless you!

    Reply to this comment
  3. Iomoio
    Iomoio April 25, 14:31

    hello!,I love your writing very much! proportion we communicate more about your article on AOL? I require an expert in this house to resolve my problem. May be that is you! Having a look ahead to see you.

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Special Offer

Latest Comments

Liberals want to deconstruct ICE??? I think our broken educational system is in far more...

Schools should be open 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year without a raise...

My i offer two other 'solutions'? K/12 school are failing...

Take a Look!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.

Don’t Miss This!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.