Who's tough on crime now?
There was a time, not too long ago, when it was considered improper if not downright dangerous for elected politicians who weigh in on criminal trials:
In early August of 1970, as Nixon was grappling with the Vietnam War, Manson and his followers were on trial in Los Angeles for the killings of Tate and several others. Nixon, like the rest of America, had apparently been following the trial on TV and in newspapers.
The president found it all very irritating. Speaking to reporters while on a trip to Denver, Nixon said the media's coverage of Manson made him out to be a "rather glamorous figure" even though he was "guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason."
That's right: the president of the United States, a lawyer (by training) and chief champion of the constitution (by law), had offered a verdict about an ongoing criminal trial of a madman.
"Within moments," wrote Jeff Guinn, the author of a book on Manson and his trial, "Nixon's remarks flashed across the national wire services," which today is like saying Manson and Nixon immediately became a trending topic.
Lawyers for Manson and his followers immediately demanded a mistrial, portraying their deranged clients as the peace-and-love good guys when compared to Nixon's misdeeds in Vietnam.
The coverage in newspapers, including the Washington Post, was fittingly surreal:
"Ronald Hughes, balding, bearded attorney for defendant Leslie Van Houten, said, 'Charles Manson is a pitiable little man accused of seven murders in Beverly Hills. I accuse him (Mr. Nixon) of killing thousands throughout the world with his war machine.'"
Judge Charles Older ultimately denied the mistrial motion.
Meanwhile, Nixon realized he had really stepped in it.
While returning to Washington aboard Air Force One, Nixon ordered his press secretary, Ronald Ziegler, to draft a statement clarifying his remarks. The plane's landing was delayed 25 minutes while the statement was edited and mimeographed.
It read, in part:
"My remarks were in the context of my expression of a tendency on the part of some to glamourize those identified with a crime. The last thing I would do is prejudice the legal rights of any person, in any circumstances.
"To set the record straight, I do not know and did not intend to speculate whether the Tate defendants are guilty, in fact, or not. All of the facts in the case have not yet been presented. The defendants should be presumed to be innocent at this stage of their trial."
Tricky Dick, my friend, you were just ahead of your time. In 2021, there’s nothing unusual at all about this kind of thing:
Well, it’s not surprising for a law-and-order MAGA Republican like Jeffries to use his position to denounce trials and burden of proof and stuff, and [record scratch]
Huh, that’s interesting. Either progressive Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries changed his mind about criminal justice issues in the past 18 months (he wouldn’t be alone in that regard) or he’s decided his deeply held commitment to justice reform only applies when the defendant is on his team.
Funny how much of that seems to be happening these days. On MSNBC, which long ago gave up any pretence of being anything other than the left-of-center propaganda equivalent of Fox News, the judge in the Rittenhouse case is now public enemy number one just because he got mad at the prosecutors for (checks notes) trying to violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights and introduce excluded evidence through the back door. Friggin’ legal mumbo-jumbo.
The questioning was desperate, but it quickly moved from breathless to potentially unconstitutional as Binger faced off multiple times with Judge Bruce Schroeder after the former noted Rittenhouse's post-arrest silence with the insinuation that it somehow indicated his guilt.
"I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence," the judge said. "That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country" for decades, adding, "I don't know what you're up to."
They also squared off over Binger's attempt to introduce evidence to the jury that Schroeder had already said was likely inadmissible. The chain of events prompted Rittenhouse's defense to ask for a mistrial with prejudice—meaning the state would not be permitted to bring the same charges—which Schroeder said he would take under advisement. "Don't get brazen with me," Schroeder told Binger. "When you say that you were acting in good faith, I don't believe that."
Binger is not the first prosecutor to receive such admonishment.
"Prosecutorial immunity, which basically provides absolute immunity to prosecutors, has served as essentially a perverse incentive in this type of a situation," Anya Bidwell, an attorney at the public interest law firm Institute for Justice, tells Reason. "Prosecutors—especially when they act inside of a courtroom, like in this case—they are 100 percent immune from any kind of civil liability, so they can lie, they can bend [the facts] whichever way they want…and they will not be held accountable." A recent example: A prosecutor in Louisiana was given immunity after working to derail rape allegations against an assistant warden at the Louisiana State Penitentiary.
That case remained low-profile. High-profile cases like Rittenhouse's tend to turn a swell of brief attention to the criminal justice system, at which point people may find their preconceived notions challenged. That's doubly true here with people on both sides of the aisle holding up Rittenhouse's actions as indicative of whatever narrative they want to believe.
[…]
Consider J.D. Vance, for example, the Republican candidate for Senate in Ohio. Binger is a "lawless thug," he said—unexpected words from someone who has touted the importance of law-and-order. And then there was conservative commentator Matt Walsh, who tweeted that the prosecutor is a "corrupt piece of shit brazenly violating the constitution" as well as "a raging asshole."
"Based on what I've seen, objectively it does seem like the prosecution really messed this up. I think that's a fair assessment. But I'm not the least bit confident that folks like J.D. Vance and Matt Walsh and whoever else have just come to that decision through neutral civil libertarian principles," says Jay Schweikert, a research fellow with the Cato Institute's project on criminal justice. "On the other side, I've seen tons of nominally progressive people who in their day jobs care a lot about criminal justice, and yet seem to be howling for a conviction, and convinced that anything the judge is doing to push back against the prosecutor is because he's racist and biased."
While liberals are sticking Back The Blue decals on their Nissan Leafs, conservatives have suddenly discovered the importance of defendants’ constitutional rights and fair treatment of people in prison.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on Thursday visited the D.C. jail and reported that detainees charged in connection with the Capitol riot were “suffering greatly.”
The Georgia Republican said her visiting the detainees in the “Patriot” wing of the D.C. Central Treatment Facility “was like walking into a prisoner of war camp and seeing men [whose] eyes can’t believe someone had made it in to see them.”
Mrs. Greene said they have “virtually no medical care, very poor food quality, and [are] being put through re-education which most of them are rejecting.”
She said the detainees “have felt forgotten and hopeless” and that she was “greeted by men with overwhelming cheers who rushed out to meet me with tears streaming down their faces.”
The lawmaker is planning to release a report about the visit and said she is committed to bringing an end to this “political war.”
She said the detainees “have felt forgotten and hopeless” and that she was “greeted by men with overwhelming cheers who rushed out to meet me with tears streaming down their faces.”
The lawmaker is planning to release a report about the visit and said she is committed to bringing an end to this “political war.”
Mrs. Greene and other Republican lawmakers have been complaining for months about alleged mistreatment of the detainees.
She and Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, tried to visit the detainees on Wednesday but were turned away by jail staff who said they did not receive the required approval for a tour. They were also denied access to the jail over the summer.
I, for one, grew tired of Louie Gohmert’s lefty bleeding-heart virtue signalling a long time ago.
For quite some time, I’ve noticed that the real divide in politics isn’t between “left” and “right” or Republican and Democrat anymore, so much as between people who believe even those they dislike have rights, and those who think rights are a privilege to be extended only to those with the correct beliefs.
And I know what side has all the momentum these days.