The Martha Stewart Treatment
Many readers will remember that, a number of years back, Martha Stewart, the doyen of contemporary American taste and design, had served prison time for something or another. Few readers will recall, however, that it was none other than the redoubtable James Comey who put her there. Stewart was relentlessly investigated by Comey for insider trading. NONE was found. Insider trading charges were NEVER ACTUALLY FILED. Undeterred, however, Comey claimed that Stewart’s public proclamations of innocence were designed to falsely prop up the value of her company’s stock, and, therefore constituted SECURITIES FRAUD. As Alan Reynolds of the Cato institute put it: “She was prosecuted for misleading people by denying committing a crime for which SHE WAS NOT CHARGED!” Even that populist rag, the New York Times, described the prosecution as “vindictive”. Several respected institutions of jurisprudence went on to describe the whole episode as “prosecutorial misconduct”. Ms. Stewart, sharp business person that she is, elected to serve the five month sentence rather than appeal, deciding that years of “bad press” during the appeal process, would harm her “brand” more than a short prison term. Being the legal trend setter that he is, Comey’s persecution (I think that the term “PERSECUTION” is more apt in this case that the traditional “prosecution”) of Ms. Stewart has become a template for a new type of American “Justice”. For want of a better label, let’s call this type of thing, The Martha Stewart Treatment.
Mr. Comey honed his skill in the Martha Stewart Treatment on a number of other cases. A sterling example is the case of Mr. Frank Quattrone. Mr. Quattrone is a banker that Comey doggedly pursued for some type of financial crime. When NONE was found, Comey indicted him on an “obstruction of justice” charge based ONLY on a SINGLE ambiguous email. Quattrone’s first trial was a hung jury. Comey brought the case to trial a second time and did get one conviction. That conviction was completely thrown out in 2006 by a higher court. The Wall Street Journal said that Comey was guilty of “prosecutorial excesses and bad judgement.” Plain English. The amount of money Mr. Quattrone spent in his own defense as well as the personal anguish he experienced was enormous. (Source: Mollie Hemingway writing in The Federalist, Copyright 2018). Chalk another one up to the Martha Stewart Treatment.
But, it’s not just the eminent James Comey that excels in the “Treatment”. It seems to have “caught on” in the Justice Department. The prosecution of New Jersey Senator Bob Mendez is another excellent case in point. The Obama DOJ brought corruption charges against Menendez for “favors” done for a longtime friend Solomon Melgen. The favors were of a rather trivial nature and the prosecutors were never able to prove it was really quid pro quo instead of just friendship. All the prosecutors could prove was that there “was POTENTIAL for corruption”, not corruption itself. Personally, I felt the whole thing smacked of Obama vindictiveness (suspiciously, the charges were brought against Menendez after he became an outspoken critic of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. The charges alone WERE enough to force Menendez to resign his ranking post on the Foreign Relations Committee, an outcome that undoubtably helped get the wrong headed Iran deal passed). The prolonged (and expensive) trial resulted in a hung jury (10 of 12 insisting on acquittal). The DOJ was initially going to try the case again, but recently came to their senses, and DROPPED ALL CHARGES. Menendez became a Martha Stewart Treatment SURVIVOR.
Anyway, the reason I have belabored the discussion of this new strategy in jurisprudence is that it has immediate relevance to Robert Mueller’s sham “Collusion” investigation that’s STILL going on full tilt in Washington as we speak. It’s obvious that after a year of compulsive investigation with near maniacal obsession by a small army of Trump haters, no evidence of collusion between Mr. Trump and Vladimir Putin was found. Instead of simply concluding the probe with the findings that President Trump has not colluded with Russia in any way shape or form, and that it’s now time to close up shop, Mueller continues to forge ahead. Why? Well, it’s to carry out the Martha Stewart Treatment on the President himself. Mueller has ALREADY administered the treatment to George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort. NEITHER of these men are accused of collusion with Russia, but, rather, of making false statements to investigators. They are more victims of the out of control Martha Stewart Treatment.
So, with all of this in mind, I have friendly advice for President Trump: Even though your natural inclination (being innocent) is to testify before Mr. Mueller, DO NOT TESTIFY! Mr. Mueller MAY (as you’ve expressed in previous statements) treat you fairly, but, DON’T COUNT ON IT. Given the popularity of the Martha Stewart Treatment by today’s brave prosecutors, Mueller could very well try to make you the next victim. DON’T LET HIM!