I have seen the phrase “politically motivated” ever since I can remember. The most recent is here:
New York Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted on charges of bank fraud and false statements by a federal grand jury in Virginia. The indictment follows allegations related to a 2023 mortgage application and comes amid accusations of political retribution by President Donald Trump’s administration, which has faced criticism for targeting political opponents. James, who previously won a high-profile civil fraud case against Trump, denies the charges and claims they are part of a politically motivated campaign.
I get it, as Copilot pointed out to me:
if someone committed a crime, prosecution should follow. But the claim of political motivation isn’t always about denying the act—it’s about challenging the fairness, consistency, or intent behind the prosecution. In democracies, that challenge is part of the system’s self-correction mechanism.
But that isn’t the way I see it being used. It is used as an absolute defense. As in if the investigation or prosecution generates political advantage for some person in power, then there is nothing further to discuss. The investigation/prosecution should be halted.
Do people really believe that? Am I misreading the implications of its use? Is it just a “hail Mary” type of play when they are desperate to avoid the consequences of their crimes?
And, for the record, I am of the opinion that all government employees should be investigated and prosecuted for every hint of criminal or civil wrongdoing. They should be held to a much higher standard than people in private life.
A cop who wants to pull you over can find a reason. The law’s funny like that. Similarly, a prosecutor who wants to get you in the box can find a reason. This is why the phrase “weaponizing the attorney general’s office” is a thing, because the law is broad and subjective enough that prosecutions can be brought on pretty much anybody without much effort. Have you checked your taxes? Are you *sure* you did them right?
Most folks think “justice” includes a notion of equality…that one group isn’t favored or targeted over another. If one party decides to dispense with that and use the prosecutorial power to hurt their enemies (and let the crimes of their friends slide), that’s not justice, that’s just abusing power. And remember prosecutions are subjective: it’s not a binary “do we prosecute this” kinda situation, it’s far more of a judgement whether certain actions rise to the level of being worth the cost of a prosecution.
The U.K. has the notion of “vexatious litigation,” which I like. In theory solicitors are supposed to help filter out court cases by people who are just being assholes to other people and prevent the courts from being clogged up with shit that doesn’t matter. We could use that here.
It is not a justice system, it is a legal system. It is as subject to politics as anything else. The most dangerous people in the country are prosecutors and judges on a mission. Judges compound that by their arrogance. Who else do you have to call Your Honor and stand up when they enter the room? Who else can toss you in jail for talking back? It has been 250 years since we got rid of the poxy British and it is time we dumped this relic too.