Mixing the Political and the Legal Gerry O’Shea
When the
imperatives of the law clash with the dynamic push and pull of power politics,
the result is often an unseemly public mess.
In the 2000 presidential contest Vice-President
Al Gore and George W. Bush ended up within a few hundred votes of each other in
Florida, and the overall national result hinged on the declaration from Miami.
Complicating
matters, the Governor of that state was Mr. Bush’s younger brother, Jeb, and
Katherine Harris, the secretary of state charged with ensuring an impartial
election, served as co-chair of the Bush for President election committee.
The electronic
result favored Bush by a whisker, but Gore called for a hand recount. Young readers
may not remember the heated controversy about “hanging chads” in punch card
ballots while the whole counting system clogged up.
The Supreme
Court expressed a strong preference for a local resolution for the controversy,
but eventually, they agreed to intervene and they voted along party lines with
the five appointed by Republican presidents favoring Bush and the four nominated
by Democrats endorsing the Gore position.
It is only a
mere 20-plus years since that Florida imbroglio, but many commentators argue
that the deep polarization and unforgiving divisions between the two parties
since then are mainly rooted in that controversial outcome. The consequences
included a disastrous invasion of Iraq, which, very likely, would not have
happened in a Gore administration.
On the other
hand, Al Gore’s patriotic decision to concede, despite the widespread anger and
frustration in his party, stands in glaring contrast to the man who clearly
lost in 2020 but is still spouting about a fraudulent election which multiple
judges rejected out-of-hand.
Governor
Andrew Cuomo also fell foul of the law last year. Some women credibly accused
him of unwelcome sexual touching and sometimes inappropriate and demeaning
conversations.
Letitia James, the New York State attorney
general, also a Democrat, initiated a major inquiry into his behavior, leading
to Cuomo’s resignation under pressure as various women complained openly about
his unwanted advances.
However, recently, the Oswego district
attorney, Gregory Oakes, joined three previous DAs in refusing to prosecute him
because his actions, while deemed regrettable, were not illegal. Still, nobody
can give him his job or reputation back. The most recent report about the
defrocked governor suggests that he is planning to oppose Ms. James for her job
at the next election.
The legal
system and politics clashed in a remarkable and memorable way in Ireland in the
1980s.
Malcolm MacArthur
was known in social circles in Dublin as an eccentric man who didn’t like work
but enjoyed a good lifestyle, thanks to a family inheritance. In the early 80s
he ran out of money and since he didn’t fancy going to a job every day, he determined
he would steal to get by.
He decided
that he needed a gun for this purpose, so he agreed to purchase one from a man
named Donal Dunne in Edenderry, a midland town about fifty miles from the
capital. He needed a car and found one owned by a 27-year old nurse, Bridie
Gargan, who was sunning herself in the Phoenix Park on a beautiful July day.
She did not
agree to part with her car, so he bludgeoned her brutally with a hammer and put
her in the back seat of the automobile. A nearby ambulance driver thinking that
he was dealing with a medical emergency, led him with siren blaring to the
nearest hospital where McArthur deposited Miss Gargan’s lifeless body. A few
days later he proceeded to Edenderry where Mr. Dunne offered him the shotgun.
McArthur liked it, but lacking the finance to cover the cost, he shot and
killed Dunne before heading back to Dublin.
He was friendly
with Patrick Connolly, the Irish Attorney General, who agreed to let him move
into his house for a while until he found lodging elsewhere. However, a few
days later, the police arrested him in the AG’s home after Mr. Connolly had
headed off for a planned holiday in the United States. McArthur pleaded guilty
to Bridie Gargan’s cruel murder and the police decided that sufficed for a life
sentence. He was released in 2012.
The Prime
Minister at the time, Charles Haughey, had to explain to an agitated population
how the man who savagely killed two unsuspecting adults ended up in the house
of his Attorney General, the chief law-enforcement officer in the country. It
was political dynamite for him.
In a memorable
speech he described the murderous events as grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre
and unprecedented. There was talk that McArthur and Connolly were in some kind
of gay relationship. This heightened the sensational story but it turned out to
be unfounded.
Conor Cruise
O’Brien, a leading opposition figure in parliament, sought to diminish the
prime minister’s handling of the situation. Focusing on the four adjectives
that Haughey used, he coined the acronym GUBU, which is still heard in Ireland
to describe a highly-unusual and ironic happening.
The Attorney General returned early from his
vacation, realized that his position was politically untenable and resigned. These
sensational events formed the basis of John Banville's fine 1989 novel The Book
of Evidence.
The GUBU acronym
could certainly be used to describe Donald Trump’s dealings with the law. He is
being sued or he is suing opponents of all kinds in dozens of cases.
In Georgia,
the Fulton Country district attorney, Fani Willis, has opened a criminal
investigation on Trump, alleging that he illegally tried to alter the outcome
of Georgia’s votes in the 2020 presidential election. The main focus in this
case has been on a phone call the then-President placed to Secretary of State
Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, during which he pleaded with him to find
enough votes to overturn his narrow defeat in the state.
Raffensperger
explained that there was no evidence of any voting chicanery and that Joe Biden
had won the election fairly. Trump persisted, “So look, all I want to do is
this, I just want to find 11,780 votes because we won the state.”
Willis has empanneled a special grand jury to
hear the evidence. They will decide whether to move the case to a regular grand
jury, or they could determine that the charges against the former president
lack merit and should be dismissed.
The second
case, involving an alleged breach of
civic statutes, comes from Letitia James who claims, “we have uncovered
significant evidence which suggests that Mr. Trump and his organization falsely
and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to
financial institutions for economic benefits.”
Ms. James is
working closely with the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who is dealing
with the same range of accusations but emphasizing tax fraud. He is alleging
felonious actions which may lead to prison time if Mr. Trump is convicted.
Meanwhile,
Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker and current Republican strategist, warned
that if his party wins a majority in the House of Representatives in the
November elections, they may well decide to jail the Democrats leading the committee
investigating the January 6th insurrection.
Newt is
always good for GUBU statements, but even these asinine comments were bettered
by an official pronouncement from the Republican National Committee that the
Capitol riots should not be viewed as illegal behavior but as “legitimate
political discussion.”
Gerry
O’Shea blogs at wemustbetalking.com
Comments
Post a Comment