double jepardy: the case of Mr. Bruno

NAPOLITANO: Zimmerman’s double jeopardy dilemma — There’s a similar judicial miscarriage now underway in New York City.  The SCOTUS tosses one conviction on an “inane” law so the prosecution has to figure out another way to ‘get their man.’ no matter what.

“As a result of that ruling, a Manhattan federal appeals court threw out Mr. Bruno’s conviction. In a fair world, that would be the end of his ordeal. However, the Obama Department of (political) Justice obtained an indictment against Mr. Bruno based upon the same set of facts that had formed the allegations of a violation of the honest services statute, but which it now claims constitutes bribery. The feds did this even though they had told the federal judge in the first trial nearly a dozen times that the state senator had not committed bribery and even though the witnesses who testified for the government in the first trial uniformly stated when asked that Mr. Bruno had not been bribed.”

Hoping you won’t become a target and can keep your distance often isn’t enough. Accountability is needed to keep the government in check. That can be difficult to do if one party is in lockstep defense of such over-reach and abuse of power as is evidenced in current legislative committee hearings.

Comments are closed.