I think this is a fair point, and I’ve been noodling over this question for the last few days - Once a particular entity has explicitly decided not to prosecute somone, is it fair for that same entity (under new leadership) to reverse that decision and pursue prosecution? Two recent cases come to mind:
The Cosby case. I think the prosecution (following the inititial no-prosecution decision under a different DA) was rightly tossed out based on the argument that Cosby had relied upon the DA’s no-prosecution promise when choosing to testify in a civil trial.
Hillary’s EMAILZ. The FBI explicitly says “We’re not pursuing criminal charges.” But Trump runs on a “Lock her up” platform, and it wouldn’t have been at all surprising if he tried to force the FBI to reverse course. I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with him doing that**, because there are no promissory estoppel issues involved - Clinton didn’t rely on the non-prosecution to her detriment.
The Wilbur Ross thing seems basically identical to Hillary’s case, where there’s no detrimental reliance on a non-prosecution promise, and I don’t think the prior DOJ choice to not prosecute should bind the current DOJ. So I’m moving my opinion to “Garland sucks a little for not prosecuting Ross.” That being said, I think it’s super unhealthy for whipsaw policy/prosecution changes with each new administration, so I’m not terribly upset about Ross not being prosecuted now. (You will never fully remove The West Wing brain rot from my body.)
**Obviously the entire EMAILZ thing was super insane. I just mean that in the abstract, choosing to prosecute someone when the prior administration chose otherwise seems fine?
Also, Dave Weigel’s tweet this morning is something that I’ve periodically thought about for the last few years.
Why didn’t Trump do more to prosecute Clinton? It was obviously a hugely popular thing among his base, and it’s not like the non-MAGA world would have rallied around her - most everyone was exhausted by her at that point. It seems like the kind of thing that would have been strategically beneficial and personally pleasing to him. So what happened here?
Unlike Wilbur Ross there wasn’t really a good charge to stick Hillary with. The difference would be that one person has probably committed almost every form of white collar crime at least once and the other one is just a shitty establishment politician who colors inside the incredibly generous lines.
He didn’t actually give a shit about locking her up and doing so would require some effort? Trump just wanted to watch TV and yell at things, he wasn’t about to try actually locking up enemies, even if he did think of the Clintons as enemies. The DOJ sure af wasn’t excited about going after top-flight políticos for ticky-tacky recordkeeping crimes.
I guess this is true, but my impression was that Trump hated Clinton. You’re saying he wouldn’t just push the Diet Coke button on the Resolute desk to have the FBI reopen the investigation? If it was the FBI pushing back on the idea, then I guess everyone wins:
MAGA idiots can continue to blame the Deep State
West Wing doofuses like me can sleep easy, knowing that the institutions will always be there to save us.
Trump could tell the FBI to go after her but they’d drag their feet and stonewall just like all the agencies did whenTrump asked them to do something ridiculous. The career guys don’t like Trump and they really don’t want to start prosecuting political opponents like a 3rd world dictatorship.
I mean Trump has been blatantly doing all kinds of crimes for years and there’s no chance he ever gets got. Biden isn’t going to do anything, Pelosi isn’t going to get out her handcuffs. These people aren’t actually mad at each other. The low-level slappies like Cohen might do time but not people like Trump or Clinton.
WTF is “boots on the ground” going to do? It’s not about bombs at the abortion clinics. It’s about reassuring women and health care providers that they won’t be legally harassed.
