It is now a felony to receive bad advice from people.
What does drinking have to do with politics? Many of our politicians have whiskey faces especially big red noses.
Jack Smith’s handling of this case resembles disbarred and convicted criminal, then-DA Mike Nifong, in the phonied up Duke lacrosse players rape case.
One Republican Representative was so outraged he sent a letter to then-U.S.A.G. Alberto Gonzales asking for an investigation into whether Nifong committed “prosecutorial misconduct” and whether he violated the civil rights of the suspects in the case.
Critics noted that police were instructed to “Go through Mr. Nifong for any directions as to how to conduct matters in this case”.......an unusual move for a prosecutor to order.
On December 16, 2006, it was revealed that Nifong conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the final report submitted to the defense team.
The prosecution of the case was criticized by the legal analyst for the National Journal, as well as New York Times columnists David Brooks and Nicholas Kristof.
An investigation by CBS’ 60 Minutes “revealed disturbing facts about the conduct of the police and the district attorney, and raised serious concerns.” (This 60 Minutes segment was honored with a Peabody Award on April 4, 2007.)
Several writers at Slate criticized the prosecution’s actions and especially criticized the mainstream media for accepting prosecution claims at face value in spite of countervailing evidence.
In light of the fact that Nifong failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to defense lawyers, The News & Observer wrote that “District Attorney Mike Nifong must rely on scanty evidence while deflecting serious questions about whether he broke the law or violated the ethics rules governing prosecutors.”
Thomas Sowell accused Nifong of using the case to improve his chances in the next election by exploiting identity groups to gain votes.
A federal judge in 2011 ruled that the civil lawsuit could proceed against Nifong, including claims of “malicious prosecution” and “fabrication of false evidence.”
Defense lawyers were strongly critical of Nifong’s handling of the case. As the details of the case emerged, Nifong was said to have made a series of accusations that later turned out to be untrue;
<><>that he exaggerated and intensified racial tensions;
<><>that he unduly influenced the Durham police investigation;
<><>that he tried to manipulate potential witnesses;
<><>that he refused to hear exculpatory evidence before indictment;
<><>that regulations on the conduct of an identification exercise were breached
<><>that he had never spoken directly to the alleged victim about the accusations;
<><>and that he made misleading presentations of various aspects of the evidence in the case.
He was eventually disbarred and even spent time in jail.