Funny how one of the prosecutors selected to accuse President Trump of malfeasance in Miami, one Karen Gilbert, has an extended history of donating to Democrats.
It raises questions about whether this prosecution is about politics, or the rule of law. Because if she gets the conviction she's looking to get, won't that serve the Democrats she hands her money to very, very well.
Rep. Matt Gaetz is rightly asking about those many, many, Gilbert donations -- to President Obama, to Joe Biden, to the Democratic National Committee, according to Breitbart News:
Karen E. Gilbert, one of the lead prosecutors in Special Counsel Jack E. Smith’s attempt to convict former President Donald Trump of mishandling White House documents, is also a past campaign donor to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the Democratic National Committee, according to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).
Gilbert’s past political donations were flagged Tuesday by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who demanded answers in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, as well as a full roster of the staff working for the special counsel.
The issue was also highlighted by Trump supporters on social media as the former president was arraigned in Miami:
The amounts weren't huge by campaign standards -- $1,000 here, $250 there. But they were steady and extended, signalling a very, very committed Democrat.
Breitbart cited Fox News's reporting in this passage her about what Gaetz wanted to know:
The congressman claimed in his letter that Smith’s past work “is both highly irregular and of extraordinary public concern,” specifically “how his office is structured,” and is giving Garland until July 7 to cough up “all staff rosters, phone lists, or similar records, within the custody or control of the Department of Justice, depicting all employees hired by or detailed to the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
Because the question he is asking is the right one -- how did these characters, including this Karen, get picked for this job, were there comparable GOP donors on the roster, were comparable GOP donors excluded, and why couldn't they find neutral and presumably fair prosecutors with no political dog in this fight instead, given that they claim to have a strong case?
Those are relevant questions, because this prosecution doesn't appear to be about enforcing the law, given its timing just as the 2024 election heats up and given that Trump currently leads in the polls.
The selective application of the law also sticks out as politically motivated given that other presidents, as well as a vice president, a senator, a National Security Advisor, and a secretary of state have also taken classified documents outside usual channels. The fact that obvious liars such as John Brennan still hold security clearances and can get their hands on classified documents any time they like and lie about what they say is yet another related politicization of the issue.
But the big one is why these political donors always turn up in these special counsel operations against Trump. Back when Robert Mueller was investigating Trump, dragging the process out for years because he couldn't find anything and because dragging it out hurt Trump while he was in office, all of his prosecutors were Democrats and a large number of them were Democrat donors, which suggests a higher level of involvement politically than just the average-joe Democrat.
Anybody see a conflict of interest? Anybody see fodder for Trump to claim that the process is rigged? How on earth could a Democrat be "fair" in such a prosecution and not cut corners, withold evidence, outright lie, and frame those they cannot stand on the political front?
A prosecutor already is under significant pressure to win a conviction as it is. A prosecutor also has a lot of discretionary power, which is an easy door to political interests rearing their ugly heads. They can, as is said, indict a ham sandwich if they want to.
If a prosecutor has a political interest in the outcome of the prosecution, then the pressure becomes overwhelming to win, not just on justice grounds, but for political plaudits. People with those conflicts of interest are more than incentivized to delve into the dirty political tricks the Democrats are already famous for in their prosecutions, effectively rendering what was supposed to be a strong case all by itself into a political show trial.
And it's already known that Gilbert has a history of dirty tricks. According to Breitbart:
Gilbert is controversial for other reasons. As Breitbart News’ Kristina Wong reported, she “was once reprimanded by a federal judge for secretly recording a defense lawyer and his investigator.”
Reliably sleazy? How convenient for Democrats.
That's certainly not optimal for the credibility of the case, which raises questions as to why this person was picked for this job at all. Was it because of her political donations? Was it because she was considered "reliable" and amenable to political direction from the Democratic National Committee? Was it because she has a history of unethical behavior? She's well thought of in those Democrat quarters as someone with the same mentality as theirs.
The flip side is whether a comparable number of Republicans were picked. If not, why not? Were they somehow "not trusted" to be "professional" in the same way they are bound to say their leftist prosecutor always is? That's a "tell."
Which isn't the same as what's needed in a fair prosecutor operating without fear or favor.
If this isn't a sign of some kind of rigging going on in this already highly political case as it is, what is?
Why do these political characters always turn up when the object is to Get Trump? And why isn't this practice prohibited as a breach of ethics, which it is?
Even if they do get the conviction they are looking for, they won't get quite the credibility they expect. With a conflicted prosecutor on this case, no one is going to believe there was a fair prosecution.
They could have prevented that perception, by hiring someone with no conflicts of interest. But they didn't.
What leaps out now is that they don't even care.
That tells us even more about the quality of this prosecution and the kind of dirty, sleazy tactics that are going to come of it.
Image: Screen shot from ABC Local 10 news video, via YouTube