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.
1. You campaign on putting your political opponent in jail, charges to be invented in due course. You win.
2. Meanwhile, you make a false statement on a loan application.
3. The charge you pick against your political opponent is false statements on loan applications.
What could possibly go wrong?
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.
The penalties for people in positions of power and trust, for violating that power and trust should be much greater than the standard penalties for whatever was done.
Theft by Joe Schmoe is a crime. Theft by Representative Joe Congressman should be a much higher crime.
Abuse of power should be a capital crime.
The simplest explanation I can think of is, you can chalk this up to the difference between literal and colloquial definitions.
Copilot is giving you the literal definition of “politically motivated,” and it is correct that wrongdoings should be investigated and maybe prosecuted, regardless of the reason any particular individual’s motivation. At the end of the day, wrongdoing itself is reason enough for investigation and possible prosecution.
But political actors like NY AG Letitia James, former FBI director James Comey, IL Governor J.B. Pritsker, et al, are using “politically motivated” to imply that the investigations and prosecutions somehow have less merit — or maybe even zero merit — because of who is calling for them. (First Axiom of Politics, and all that.) And to some small extent, they have a point: their infractions would never be investigated if it were anyone other than Trump in the White House. To that extent, even if they’re NOT “politically motivated,” the appearance and timing is such that these people can make a decent case that they are … and try to call into question the validity of the proceedings.
But does that automatically mean the investigations and prosecutions are invalid or otherwise without merit? Not at all. It’s two completely separate questions.
From where I’m sitting, I do believe the investigations are “politically motivated”; I believe Trump is the kind of egotist that would leverage the power of his office against his enemies, and that anyone else as President wouldn’t bother. That doesn’t make him or the investigations/prosecutions inherently wrong, but it does lend to the appearance of political retaliation whether it is or not.
The appearance could be enough to make or break a case, too; a Leftist judge might take any reason to dismiss or downplay a criminal case against a fellow Leftist. It hasn’t gone without notice that NY AG James is being charged for “bank fraud” — she (allegedly) purchased a property saying it would be her residence to get a better price or interest rate, but instead she’s renting it out as an income property — a misrepresentation which is VERY similar to the alleged ones for which she charged Trump with “34 felonies” (but were actually misdemeanors past the statute of limitations). The whole thing reeks of possible political retaliation … but at the same time it doesn’t make her factually or legally innocent, either.
Even if the investigations are “politically motivated,” that’s not a legal defense, not the way those being investigated are using the phrase. Ultimately it will be up to a grand jury to issue an indictment, and then a judge or jury to determine the facts (and guilt or innocence) based on the evidence provided at trial.
But the fact that they feel comfortable using “politically motivated” as a legal defense says they’re operating with a VERY different definition than the literal one Copilot gave you.
There’s an old saying for lawyers: When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither is on your side, pound the table. Using the “politically motivated” phrase this way, absent facts or law, seems like a whole lot of table pounding.
Just my opinion. (Also, IANAL.)