Are Trump, Gaetz and the like being selectively prosecuted and if so is that a bad thing?

Great Debates
1

First let me make it clear that I am not a fan of Gaetz or Trump. A believe they did the bad things they are accused of and should suffer all of the consequences that are coming to them.But in the back of my mind I do wonder would they have prosecuted if they had not come to national prominence. I started putting this in poltics and elections but decided to put it here instead because much of it also applies to celebrities outside of politics.

Now a lot of the allegations against Trump are directly related to his time in office, including obstruction of justice, extortion of the Georgia Sec of state, incitement to riot, but I am more interested in the prosecution for things that predate his time in office. Trump has been a corrupt SOB from day 1, but other than the obvious scam that was Trump university hadn’t really been thoroughly investigated for prosecution until he became president. Also even though he is a tax cheating schmuck its not clear that he is any more of a tax cheating schmuck than any of the other real estate developers of his station. As an anecdotal example my wife used to work for a man who owned several hotels and strip malls and years ago mentioned that he would hire two different appraisers, one who would low ball the estimate when the property was being assessed for tax purposes and one who high balled the estimate when he was seeking a loan from a bank. She told me about this long before the revelations regarding Trump came to light, and had gotten the impression that this practice was ubiquitous in the commercial real estate industry.

As for Gaetz, it is the common practice of prosecutors to flip the small fish in order to nail the big fish. You cut a deal with the street level dealers in order to get evidence you can use to bring down the drug kingpin. In the Gaetz case this has been somewhat turned on its head, with Joel Greenberg seeming to be a pimp of underage girls while Gaetz is more of a client, but its Greenberg who is being given a deal in order to make the case against Gaetz.

When it comes to legal issues,it seems that public prominence can be a double edged sword. On the one hand it can it can shield you from prosecution “Do you know who I am? I can destroy you with a phone call!” but on the other hand, prosecuting an important figure can be a big boost to a prosecutors reputation. Also as a public figure you are going to be under more scrutiny from the public so any indiscretions are more likely to come out in public and if they do, there is going to be a strong demand that prosecutors respond. The clearest example of this is David Fahrenthold’s investigation of the Trump foundation leading to its eventual dissolution.

On the one hand, there is nothing particularly wrong with this. These aren’t “witch hunts” or fishing expeditions, there really is ample evidence that the people involved actually did what they are accused of, and if they are convicted justice will have been served. On the other hand selective prosecution, particularly if its politically motivated, (which may or may not be the case) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ideally justice should be blind and while not every criminal act will be brought to trial the choice of which to prosecute should depend more on the act than on the identity of the perpetrator.

Another thing that concerns me is that it is my impression that defendants in prominent cases are rarely offered plea deals, because the prosecutors know that the public won’t be satisfied with a half loaf. See Chauvin as an example.

Finally it should be mentioned that I am still undecided about exactly how I feel about this. Given the political make up of the Dope I think its likely I will find myself in the uncomfortable position of Devils advocate. But looking deep down I may be opening this debate in order to hear good arguments against what I suggested above so that I can fully enjoy the schadenfreude that hopefully is to come without any lingering misgivings. :grin:

2

In an ideal world, the only thing a prosecutor would take into consideration would be the facts of the case.
But this isn’t an ideal world, and prosecutors, like many other jobs, don’t have the necessary resources to do their jobs “ideally”.
High profile cases do several things at once. They prosecute offenders, they show the public that they are prosecuting offenders, and they serve a a warning to others that they are not out of reach.

Then there’s the fact that a case can’t be investigated/prosecuted if the DA doesn’t even know about it. High profile people have a harder time hiding their misdeeds than your average Jane. There’s more people willing to “talk”.

3

In fact, the biggest prosecutions out of Manhattan and New York State are prosecuting exactly the things you’re concerned about: Potential felony violations that pre-date Trump’s time in office.

The only felony case currently on his heels arising out of his time in office is the Georgia election interference case. No way that one could have been investigated or prosecuted until post election.

I’m not aware of any current investigation into Trump’s potential obstruction of justice during his time in office, but given that he successfully obstructed at every turn, I have no problem with him being investigated now to see if charges should be laid. You can’t let people get away with obstructing justice. It just encourages them to do it more.

You’re right, there are a lot of tax cheating schmucks who get away with it. That doesn’t make it right. One of the main reasons that Trump got away with it for so long is that his is a small, privately-held organization. There’s no SEC breathing down his neck, no shareholders to whom he must account. If you put yourself in the public eye, however, you can expect to be closely scrutinized. Can’t put yourself more in the public eye than becoming president. What Trump never got was that with that privilege comes a duty to adhere to your oath of office. He didn’t.

It actually is the common practice of prosecutors. Of course Trump and Gaetz would like you to think otherwise, but this is a time-honored method of convicting big fish who are the most culpable for big violations.

Gaetz was much more than a client. He appears to have been an active participant in making false identifications and hiding payments to an underage sex partner. It indicates he knew he was doing something illegal.

If we believe in the foundational principle of the rule of law, then those who are breaking it must be prosecuted – regardless of their station in society, whether public or private.

Prosecutors who have slam-dunk cases tend to not offer plea deals. Sometimes it does have to do with the high profile nature of a case. Sometimes it’s because they feel the violations are so egregious, the person must be made an example of. But usually, it’s due to how certain they feel about the strength of their case. And frankly, sometimes they do overstep and have more faith in their evidence than a jury will.

Hope this helps with your enjoyment of the schadenfreude!

4

They should neither be prosecuted because of who they are nor not prosecuted because of who they are. So I guess the question is if you or I would be prosecuted for doing the same thing. If so, have at it.

5

Trump’s audits have made records in length of time and money at stake, as documented in New York Times stories.

He is entitled to a presumption of innocence. But I think your post is a bit over-broad in its condemnation of real estate developers.

6

All criminals think that they’re being seletively prosecuted. So far Gaetz hasn’t been charged with anything, and neither has Trump. But when one’s friends have been charged, or are making deals and talking, one should be concerned about one’s criminal history. Or one’s criminal present. Thems the breaks.

7

Trump would have gone down with Cohen when he was named “individual 1”, were he not president at the time. So, while it’s put him in the spotlight, it’s also given him a chance to skirt the law (I know there are other examples, this is just the clearest one).

In terms of the op, I have no issue as long as the punishment is the same as you or I would receive. It’s always going to be the case that being famous, and being in a public office of trust, will make it harder to commit secret crimes. But that’s not the legal system’s fault.

8

Gaetz/Greenburg strike me as two guys who thought life was a Mafia Movie and that just absolute, endless corruption was so normal that they didn’t need to cover it up, hardly. And I think a fair number of Trumpists think the same way. They think that’s the point of becoming a “player”: you can do whatever you want. They admire that, aspire to that. So they think it’s bullshit to suddenly care. But the reality is that in most times and places, that sort of corruption is not normal or expected.

9

My comment is that there are a lot of smart crooks who fly under the radar. They live modestly, they don’t buy a flashy new car every year, they don’t go off to the South Pacific or Europe at the drop of a hat.

That’s because they’re smart. They know that if they get too high a profile, cops or prosecutors might start noticing, and start investigating.

Gotti broke that code. His life style screamed “Yeah I’m a crook! Whatcha goin’ do about it!”

And he got his answer, dying in the pen.

Trump never got the memo.

10

Thanks all for your responses.

I should have been clear that when I said “I am more interested in the prosecution for things that predate his time in office”, I meant for the purposes of this thread. In general I think his malfeasance as president is worse that what he did before, but the issue of selective prosecution is moot for those acts since if he weren’t president they never would have happened.

Yes it usually depends on the strength of the case, but given the difficulty of prosecuting police I would not have called the Chauvin case a slam dunk. Over 90% of cases end in a plea bargain but I have a hard time thinking of any high profile cases that did. Now a lot of this may be due to selective memory (celebrity trials make much better TV than celebrity plea bargains), and it also may be that celebrities have the resources to actually go to trial that normal defendants don’t, but it does seem that prosecutors are more likely to spend resources on taking a celebrity to trial than an average schmo.

Summarizing the other responses, it seems that the general consensus is that they weren’t specifically targeted for their celebrity so much as, the fact that being a celebrity made it more likely that their crimes would be found out. That seems reasonable and for the most part puts my concerns to rest.

Reading over the responses also made me consider that fact that sometimes prosecutors selectively go for the low hanging fruit, as a surrogate for what they are really after, and that is not probably not a bad thing. One could argue that Al Capone’s tax returns were selectively audited, and I have no problem with that.

11

I’ll add one more point for why high profile defendants may go to trial more readily than people who are not well known.

Either side can demand a jury trial. If the prosecutor feels the case is a strong one, he/she can demand a jury trial and never bother with making a plea offer.

But similarly, if the prosecutor feels the case is weaker, it is almost always the defendant who demands a jury trial. They hope to find at least one sympathetic juror to hang the case – or even persuade the rest of the jurors against a conviction.

This is even more likely when the defendant is a high profile person. In the case of Trump, I believe he will bring the weight of his recognition to bear and do all he can to taint the jury pool in advance of any trial. Even if prosecutors were inclined to make a plea offer, I don’t think he would accept it. He will force a trial.

One might look at this as an advantage that lesser known people don’t have.

12

I would also point out the phenomenon of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors can selectively prosecute whomever and whatever crimes they want. It’s not odd if they do. It’s actually more odd if they don’t, because it is after all their prerogatives.

13

True, but if you had a prosecutor who decided to prosecute all blacks and no whites, or automatically prosecuted all allegations against people who gave money to his political opponent that would be bad.

14

Exactly. It’s prosecutorial professional judgment in the face of inevitable uncertainty, not prosecutorial impunity to do as they will for any reason fair or foul.

Like the “business judgement” rule applied to corporate management mistake vs. negligence vs. malfeasance vs. deliberate crime, it can be difficult to parse the gray cases near the middle. It’s not that hard to identify the mostly black outlier among the mostly white cases. At least not if one is honest rather than simply partisan about it.

15

Another thought as to why I think it might be a good thing if politicians are more heavily investigated/prosecuted than their peers - they have inordinate power and ability to affect society through their lawmaking abilities, so IMO it is more important for them to be of high moral character than the average citizen. Ideally, all people breaking the law will be investigated and prosecuted equally, but in a world with limited resources and time for investigating/prosecuting I am fine with more effort being made into targeting crooked politicians. There could be a deterrence effect for criminals to enter politics if they know that they will face an increased likelihood of being investigated and prosecuted for their crimes. Politicians getting away with crimes sends a bad message to the populace and reinforces the average person’s prejudices against politicians.

That being said, I don’t think it’s necessarily a good thing if politicians use the threat of the law to politically attack their rivals (eg. use false or overblown accusations to sink a rival politically). I also think all politicians should have similar levels of scrutiny and not specifically the party in power or party out of power. The law needs to be non-partisan.

16

As for Gaetz… I find it likely that he, on his own merits, is so incredibly stupid and corrupt that he radiates a bat-signal of criminality that no competent prosecutor could possibly ignore, and he clings to Trump hoping from a pardon from a kindred spirit. So, no selective prosecution there.

Trump himself isn’t being selectively prosecuted. He was under investigation long before he became President. In a way he selected himself by becoming President and promptly trying to obstruct all investigations into himself, past, present, and future.

No doubt there’s some self-selection going on. Numerous toadies and lickspittles attached themselves to Trump, and cheerfully indulged in all the crimes that entails, and to their dismay they found themselves targeted as the little fish who might be used against the bigger fish.

So yes, there’s some selectivity, but it’s the self-selectivity of idiots who decided to play in traffic and got squashed. I mean, it’s not the dumbest play in the world… just look at what Manafort, Flynn, and Stone got away with. A number of people will have calculated that they could get away with white-collar or sex-collar crimes. And they won’t be wrong.

17

I am so stealing this phrase!

18

Well, maybe. But trump used the power of his office to hide his records and thus delay prosecution for years. Other tax cheating schmucks are unable to do this.