The Rule of Law, So to Speak

There is a lot of talk lately about “The Rule of Law” and how it is either being followed or trampled in some recent cases. When it comes down to it, every case involves the rule of law. The only question is: what rule? And the only answer is: whatever rule the court says.

This has come up now in two cases from this past week – Bridgegate and Michael Flynn.

Bridegate is the name given to the prosecution of two of Governor Christie’s operatives who had traffic halted at the George Washington Bridge as political retaliation against a Mayor who opposed the Governor.  Michael Flynn is the suppository whose conviction for lying to the FBI the Attorney General is now trying to vacate. In both cases, the people charged unquestionably did what they were charged with – the operatives stopped the traffic and Flynn lied.  However, in both cases, “the rule of law” arguably prevents them from being convicted.

The Bridgegate case is the clearer one. There, the Supreme Court ruled, as it has in the past, that the law under which the operatives were convicted didn’t cover what they did. The Court doesn’t mince words about how it feels about their conduct.  It calls it “deception, corruption and abuse of power.” But, that’s not what “the rule of law” is all about. All obnoxious conduct is not criminal.  If it were, the prisons would be full of mimes. It is vital that only conduct that fits within the applicable law is what sends you up the river. The law in Bridgegate required that the mis-deeder end up getting something tangible out of the mis-deed. Here, the operatives didn’t. So, they now go free and remain capable of plying their trade at a variety of other thoroughfares of their choice.

No discussion of Bridgegate, though, is complete without reference to the bloated Governor on whose behalf the sins were committed. Sometimes, the rule of law is applied with a dose of common sense.  Judges, even the Supremes, are people. Could their decision here have been at least a little bit influenced by what everybody knows but can’t prove – that the Prince of Paunch was really the moving force behind it all and that the operatives were mere scapegoats?  Very possible.  

And then there is Michael Flynn. Without question, he lied in an FBI interview about whether, on behalf of the United States, he told Russia that we would relax our restrictions against that country before he was legally allowed to say that. He was in a position make his representations credible because he was about to become the National Security Advisor to the newly elected, but not yet sworn-in, piece orange excrement that walks upright. Flynn pled guilty twice. Then, he had a change of heart, or a change of whatever organ he has in its place. 

Now, the President’s fixer, who otherwise masquerades as the Attorney General, says that Flynn should be exonerated. Why? Well, of course, because of the rule of law.  He says that the FBI fooled Flynn into lying and shit like that undermines our rule of law. To the contrary, in my opinion, it is the Attorney General who is doing the undermining.

I don’t put a lot of stock in the fact that Flynn already pled guilty twice. Remember, the government had promised him that if he did, he would not see any jail time, or very little. If I were facing ten or so years in prison, but I was told that if I said that I did something wrong I would be able to just go home, I’d swear that I was the one behind the grassy knoll.

What I do put stock in, is that the context of the interview puts the lie to the arguments of William “How Did He Pass The” Barr. The interview was part of the overall investigation into Russian interference. It was entirely reasonable for the FBI to ask Flynn about his relationship to the Russians. They did, and he lied. That’s a crime. But, as I said at the outset, the rule of law is whatever a court says it is. We’ll have to wait to see what the Judge in this case says.

Finally, there is a third case coming up that may be the most important “rule of law” decision of all. The Supreme Court is going to hear Trump v. Vance.  That’s the one where the Manhattan DA has subpoenaed the financial records of the President’s accountants.  The President says they can’t do that. Why? Because he says that while a person is President, the rule of law prevents anybody from investigating anything about anything that President has ever done.  Whew! Can you imagine what the “rule of law” will be if the Supreme Court agrees with that argument? We will end up with the oxymoronic principle that the rule of law allows a President to be above the law. I take that back, it won’t be “oxymoronic”, it will just be “moronic.”

But, it will be the rule of law.