January 12, 2013

Did David Gregory benefit from prosecutorial discretion or personal connections? [Darleen Click]

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.

Posted by Darleen @ 9:49am
30 comments | Trackback

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (30)

  1. 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?

    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.

  2. Proles, you have been warned.

  3. That’s a fairly tenuous personal connection by the way, if that’s all there is to it.

  4. 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.

  5. 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”.

  6. Indeed, let them carry both 30 and 10 capacity magazines (just as Gregory did), as well as signs reading “Bigger is better”.

  7. One of the things that offends me most as a prosecutor is the unequal application of law depending on the status of the individual.

    I’m not a prosecutor, but it’s been one of my bêtes noires for years too.

  8. The clarity of the violation of this important law….

    Why is the law important? If Gregory clearly violated the law, but there is no interest to be served in prosecuting him, doesn’t that prove that the law is not important? If the precise thing that he did — which is clearly what is defined as a crime — raises no interest in prosecution, how can we be satisfied by letting this one nice famous man go?

    In 2012, 105 people were arrested on charges that included the possession of high capacity rifle magazines.

    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.

  9. The legal principle on display here is “Mansueti homines loqui absque licentia domini tui”

  10. So if you put a political sticker on your 30 magazine does this mean it is protected?

  11. Only if you put the right, er – left sticker on it.

  12. 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.

  13. 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”?

  14. 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.

  15. i want to know more about these arduous dieting practices

    hey lady you might could be doing it wrong

  16. Not quite OT: and something I missed in the Holiday time but was quoted here.

    Brett [Joshpe ed], like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.

  17. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate

    moving the overton window by bambi comparisons. see: knives england

  18. 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.

  19. 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)

  20. Shawnee Woman fends off home invasion.

    SHAWNEE, Oklahoma –
    Armed with a gun and ready to shoot, a Shawnee woman defended her home as man broke down her door. It happened in broad daylight and she didn’t back down.

  21. Not quite OT: and something I missed in the Holiday time but was quoted here.

    And on that note, Ben Shapiro follows up: Why I Brought Piers Morgan That ‘Little Book’

    In other words, Piers likes the Second Amendment because he has to, but if he had his druthers, it would go up in a puff of gunpowder-free smoke.

    Unfortunately, Morgan’s perspective on that “little book” is held by wide swaths of the left. President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden seem perfectly happy to continue to use executive power to achieve an imperial presidency in violation of the checks and balances of the Constitution. Democrats in the Senate and House have suggested that Congress abdicate its fundamental duty on the debt ceiling and allow President Obama to unilaterally raise it. And when it comes to the Constitution’s limited powers, the left has hated them for well over a century.

    This kid gets it. Therefore, he won’t be invited back.

  22. Running afoul of the Conventional Wisdom™ will do that, Pablo.

  23. 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 ???

  24. 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.

  25. Pingback: Shameless Travesties R Us | Daily Pundit

  26. 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.

  27. One law for our friends and another for our enemies.

  28. ” Mansueti homines loqui absque licentia domini tui ”

    You meek men speak without the permission of your lords

  29. One law for our friends and another for our enemies.

    see illegal immigrants

  30. that would make two different sets of laws which is so not fair

Leave a Reply