There has been so much talk, analysis, and criticism in the media about the indictment of Director James Comey and the appointments of President Trump’s personal lawyers to head U.S. Attorney’s offices (Lindsay Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia and Alina Habba in the District of New Jersey).
When Mr. Comey was in power, he investigated people he believed to be wrongdoers and referred their cases to the prosecutors. Now the people he investigated, the president and his advisors among them, are in power, they investigated and now indicted him. Politically, his prosecution may not look good for the government, but legally, it is our cherished, normal American way of life.
The American Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich? -Blame the grand jury institution not the prosecutors. The prosecutor in the case of Mr. Comey, a former insurance lawyer, has no prosecutorial experience? -Good for Mr. Comey as the case may not go past the U.S. District Court level. Prosecutors and lawyers read the same book, study the same case law and precedents. There is no reason why a lawyer cannot be a prosecutor.
These topics have taken so much writing and TV time, and the public is distracted from scrutinizing other matters in the news that may fundamentally affect our life: why does Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth summoned hundreds of generals to a meeting in Quantico with no agenda provided to them? Why does the government continue sending military forces to cities all over the country when there is no emergency requiring such deployments? Why does the president claim Portland is “war-ravaged” so he wants to send military troop there? Local leaders say it is “unnecessary”, and the city is “safe and calm”. Is it domestic war game or urban warfare exercise preparing the military for things to come?
Those are questions more important than whether a lawyer can act competently as a prosecutor.
JOHN P. LE PHONG (This article appears on X, Facebook, and thelephongjournal.com)
