Interesting, that no where in DC AG Irvin Nathan’s letter attempting to explain the reasons for declining to prosecute does Nathan reveal his personal connection to the Gregory family.
It further undermines public confidence in such decisions to find out that Nathan knew Gregory and his wife, high-powered attorney Beth Wilkinson.
Anne dug up the connection in which in 2011 Nathan and Wilkinson participated together in a charity mock trial for the Washington, D.C. Shakespeare Theatre Company (emphasis in original):
In this town full of lawyers it should be no surprise that this event sold out in 44 seconds….. The attorneys were Beth Wilkinson a partner at Paul Weiss (and wife of David Gregory, aka the Silver Fox, who was snapping pictures like a proud hubby!) and Irv Nathan, Acting Attorney General for DC. Both were hilarious and Beth looked so great in her black dress and patent leather heels, I was totally motivated to stick to my overly arduous diet.
A prosecutor I know, and have worked with, wrote this to friends today:
One of the things that offends me most as a prosecutor is the unequal application of law depending on the status of the individual. So the D.C. Attorney General will not prosecute reporter Gregory because they claim he was holding and displaying an illegal high-capacity magazine for First Amendment purposes? What if he were holding some other contraband on TV such as a kilo of cocaine or a stack of child pornography? Same result? I am ashamed of being associated with other prosecutors who have double standards. See the article for the “justifications” in the Attorney General’s letter.
Don’t try that one on the Mall kiddies –not even with a disabled magazine. David Gregory is a trained First Amendment Professional and you aren’t.
Proles, you have been warned.
That’s a fairly tenuous personal connection by the way, if that’s all there is to it.
I actually believe that DC is now ripe for a mass protest against the high-capacity magazine law by civil rights types by walking around the mall with AR-15 standard 30-rd mags held high in the air.
The DC prosecutor has given them the green light since the protest would fall squarely under first amendment protection.
Ernst
but it’s there and not revealed. As LI says, it may not rise to level of recusal, but the fact it wasn’t revealed upfront goes to undermining the credibility of Nathan’s “justifications”.
Indeed, let them carry both 30 and 10 capacity magazines (just as Gregory did), as well as signs reading “Bigger is better”.
I’m not a prosecutor, but it’s been one of my bêtes noires for years too.
The law is important. It shows that it is considered important to have laws which can be used against the “little people“. Gun laws have always been passed and enforced precisely for this important purpose, controlling those who are considered of a lesser status by those who are in and have the political power at the time.
The legal principle on display here is “Mansueti homines loqui absque licentia domini tui”
So if you put a political sticker on your 30 magazine does this mean it is protected?
Only if you put the right, er – left sticker on it.
So much for equal justice.
And, of course, prosecutors will still haul people into court for violating the magazine ban. Prosecutorial discretion, don’t you know.
Yet liberal progressives will defend such practices.
The progressive merely follows the admonition “Don’t forget to haul the ladder up behind you after you’ve used it!” Otherwise, what could they possibly mean by “You didn’t build that”?
I’ve long known the rule of law was pretty much meaningless these days, but, for some reason, this case really drove home the point.
i want to know more about these arduous dieting practices
hey lady you might could be doing it wrong
Not quite OT: and something I missed in the Holiday time but was quoted here.
moving the overton window by bambi comparisons. see: knives england
All of you should be more circumspect and deferential. How dare you presume to ask that Lord Gregory should be held to the same standard as peasants, as I have often asked just as impertinently about Lord Corzine? Their master, Obama omnipotent, is mustering in his bureaucracy armies of lawyers and they shall strike your children yet unborn and unbegot that lift your vassal hands against his head and threat the glory of Obama’s precious crown.
Remember your place.
All of you should be more circumspect and deferential. How dare you presume to ask that Lord Gregory should be held to the same standard as peasants, as I have often asked just as impertinently about Lord Corzine? Their master, Obama omnipotent, is mustering in his bureaucracy armies of lawyers and they shall strike your children yet unborn and unbegot that lift your vassal hands against their heads and threat the glory of Obama’s precious crown.
Remember your place.
(One important change. Sorry)
Shawnee Woman fends off home invasion.
And on that note, Ben Shapiro follows up: Why I Brought Piers Morgan That ‘Little Book’
This kid gets it. Therefore, he won’t be invited back.
Running afoul of the Conventional Wisdom™ will do that, Pablo.
Greetings:
What what’s left of my inquiring mind wants to know is what the heck happened to the magazine of mass murder ??? Have the authorities seized it or does Mr. Gregory have it in his trophy case ???
I thought the legal principle in play here was “because fuck you, peasant.”
I don’t consider the law to be really in effect now, anyway, especially since celebrities and politicians walk (or skate) most of the time.
[…] Did David Gregory benefit from prosecutorial discretion or personal connections? [Darleen Click] | p… […]
If I grasp the meaning of ‘in effect’ Merovign, as something akin to worthy of respect, indeed, when application of law becomes ostentatiously arbitrary, so will voluntary obedience often likewise become rather more arbitrary than not. This is the intent, in some relevant sense, of the meaning of the destruction of the formerly prevailing Constitutional order.
One law for our friends and another for our enemies.
” Mansueti homines loqui absque licentia domini tui ”
You meek men speak without the permission of your lords
see illegal immigrants
that would make two different sets of laws which is so not fair