Maybe the president has to look beyond the Fox News green room to get the best potential U.S. attorney.
Today’s Morning Jolt notes that U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro is having an awfully rough start to her tenure; federal prosecutors in D.C. have racked up at least eight separate rejections from grand juries during the past month. Numerous readers point out that Washington, D.C., is full of Democrats, and Democrats on grand juries may well look at any indictment brought forth by a Trump-appointed prosecutor with skepticism.
That’s a fair enough point as far as it goes, but it’s not like the partisan makeup of the District of Columbia emerged overnight. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you have to try to get indictments with the grand jury you have, not the grand jury you’d like to have. In the District, a grand jury must have 16 to 23 members, and at least twelve must vote to indict. It doesn’t have to be unanimous! And remember, there is no defense attorney present, and no counter-evidence is offered. It’s one side of the story. For a prosecutor, the indictment is supposed to be the easier part of the job.
Before becoming U.S. attorney for D.C., Pirro’s most recent experience as a prosecutor was as Westchester County district attorney, ending her term at the end of 2005. For perspective, that’s before the existence of Uber, Tesla, Instagram, or the iPad. The last time Pirro was a prosecutor, Joe Biden had just qualified for the earliest age to collect Social Security benefits.
Back in 2006, when Pirro was running for state attorney general, her Democratic rival contended her boast of a sterling record of convictions was illusory — that far too many were convicted but given probation.
Only eight of the men prosecuted by Ms. Pirro were given outright prison sentences by judges, according to records from the district attorney’s office. The rest, 93 percent, received some form of probation. “In many cases, we asked for jail time and didn’t get it,” Ms. Pirro said.
According to Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the current Westchester district attorney, Janet DiFiore, who has continued the sting program, 54 people indicted in the operation under Ms. Pirro received only probation, generally of five years. Mr. Chalfen said 46 others received so-called shock probation, which called for weekends behind bars.
Whether you find that criticism plausible or not, it’s water under the bridge. The 74-year-old Pirro is best known as a host on Fox News Channel, and the documents released in the Smartmatic lawsuit revealed that various Fox News executives characterized her as “a reckless maniac” and “insane.” Lots of people ruffle feathers and make enemies on the job in big-time cable news television, but those labels are less than ideal.
Back in May, The Atlantic’s senior editor Gilad Edelman called Pirro “qualified” for the job of U.S. attorney while contending she is a partisan hack. But being “qualified” for the job doesn’t necessarily mean someone was the best fit for the job. Football coach Bill Parcells used to say, “You are what your record says you are.” Right now, Pirro’s team of prosecutors are going into courtrooms, and failing to convince grand juries at an unprecedented rate. Whether you love them or hate them, they’re not getting the job done.
No doubt, getting an indictment from a Washington, D.C., jury is a tough task. If the Trump administration wants to get those indictments, maybe the president has to look beyond the Fox News green room to get the best potential U.S. attorney.