Jonathan Kravis ’99 writes in the Washington Post:

Three months ago, I resigned from the Justice Department after 10 years as a career prosecutor. I left a job I loved because I believed the department had abandoned its responsibility to do justice in one of my cases, United States v. Roger Stone. At the time, I thought that the handling of the Stone case, with senior officials intervening to recommend a lower sentence for a longtime ally of President Trump, was a disastrous mistake that the department would not make again.

I was wrong.

Is lying the best way to start a Washington Post op-ed? I don’t know! But surely Kravis is lying here. There is no way that he believed, three months ago, that “senior officials” — in which group he must include AG Barr — were not going to involve themselves in DoJ decisions. After all, we have an executive branch! The AG works for the President, who gets to weigh in whenever he wants. Every president in history has done so, at least when the DoJ starts doing stuff he does not like.

Last week, the department again put political patronage ahead of its commitment to the rule of law, filing a motion to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn — notwithstanding Flynn’s sworn guilty plea and a ruling by the court that the plea was sound.

That is a mendacious summary of the Flynn case. Read here for a contrasting view. One subtle point is that I suspect that Kravis’s buddies in the DoJ are glad that the Flynn case has been dismissed. Do you really think that they would want to try that case again, providing Flynn’s excellent lawyer Sidney Powell with the power to question them and the FBI agents who entrapped Flynn under oath? I doubt it! Yet Kravis, being a smart Eph Deep Stater, can portray a win for his side as a loss for the rule of law. Clever!

Prosecutors are trained to make their cases in the courtroom and let the results speak for themselves.

It is bad enough that we have to put up with the Deep State. Must we also parrot its lies? Must we shout that we “Love Big Brother!” Just who, exactly, has “trained” prosecutors to “let the results speak for themselves?” No one! In fact, every junior DA learns the exact opposite lesson as their boss works the press and the cameras, angling for the next step up the political ladder. When Karvis worked under the sainted Obama, did the DoJ not give press conferences?

[M]y colleagues who still serve the department are duty-bound to remain silent

I love Big Brother! I really, truly do! DoJ lawyers have never, ever talked to the press. They never leak anything. They “remain silent,” except for maybe some nasty Republicans, of course.

Last week came an equally appalling chapter: the department’s motion to drop the Flynn case. Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements in connection with lies he told in an FBI interview about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Flynn twice admitted under oath that he had committed this crime, and the trial judge issued a lengthy opinion upholding the plea.

And why did Flynn plead? Because you and your DoJ thug buddies threatened to jail his son for “crimes” that half of Washington is “guilty” of. Justice has been served in this case, at least.

Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections.

I love Big Brother! DoJ never once, in its history, did anything on the basis of “political connections,” at least until January 2016.

Perhaps that is enough of a rant for today. Justice — in the form of John Durham — is coming. With luck, Kravis will not get caught up in the carnage.

Facebooktwitter
Print  •  Email