Like a predator targeting its prey, rogue and overzealous prosecutors have for decades targeted high-profile political officials and successful business executives. Promotions, presidential appointments, elective office, lucrative consulting careers, and television appearances as legal commentators await them. The bigger the catch, the bigger the trophy.
But when the stakes are high and careers on the line, the pressure to convict becomes a crime in itself — leaving those targeted nearly or completely ruined.
In the case of Sholom Rubashkin, CEO of Agriprocessors, the largest kosher meat processing plant in the U.S., he was convicted of more than 80 counts of financial fraud in 2009 and was sentenced to 27 years in prison as a nonviolent, first-time offender. After federal authorities raided his business, they were forced to file for bankruptcy. His attorneys argued that the federal government interfered in the sale of his business following the bankruptcy filing, which drove down the price of the business and resulted in lenders losing $27 million.
Federal prosecutor Pete Deegan argued that Rubashkin should receive a life sentence. On Dec. 20, 2017, President Trump commuted Rubashkin’s sentence after lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and legal experts argued that his case had been riddled with prosecutorial misconduct. Today, Deegan is the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa.
In the case of accounting firm Arthur Andersen, federal prosecutors convicted them in 2002 of obstruction of justice for the shredding of documents related to their work with Enron. As a result of the conviction, 28,000 Arthur Andersen employees lost their jobs. But in 2005, the Supreme Court, in a rare unanimous decision, overturned the conviction. In the court’s opinion, “Jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing.” The federal prosecutor in the botched Arthur Andersen case was Andrew Weissmann, who would later be promoted to general counsel under then-FBI Director Robert Mueller. Today, Weissmann is one of the senior attorneys working for Mueller’s special counsel investigation.
The famous Martha Stewart was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction, and making false statements to federal investigators. She was sentenced in 2004 to five months in prison as a nonviolent, first-time offender. Many have argued that Stewart’s conviction and subsequent prison sentence was harsh. The federal prosecutor in her case was James Comey, who later would become FBI director. On May 9, 2017, Trump fired Comey as FBI director per the recommendation of the Justice Department for his mishandling of the investigation related to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. On May 31, 2018, Trump floated the idea of a pardon for Stewart while speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One.
In the case of Tim Durham, a top Indiana Republican fundraiser and investor, he was convicted of securities fraud in 2012 and was sentenced to 50 years in a maximum-security prison as a nonviolent, first-time offender. When federal agents, who were led to believe that a ponzi scheme was taking place, raided one of Durham’s companies, investors panicked and the company’s value immediately tanked, resulting in millions of dollars in losses for everyday people who had invested their hard-earned money in his company. However, no evidence of a ponzi scheme was discovered, and Durham was ultimately convicted of “overvaluing” a handful of the company’s investments, a charge he’s passionately denied.
The federal prosecutor in Durham’s case was the former chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party and friend of former President Barack Obama, Joe Hogsett. After Durham’s conviction, Hogsett left the prosecutor’s office and ran a successful campaign for mayor of Indianapolis, a position he still holds today. Meanwhile, Durham sits in prison serving a 50-year sentence, which, like Rubashkin’s, was based upon bankruptcy losses after federal authorities raided his business.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial. History, however, has proven that defendants, especially high-profile ones, are oftentimes denied that guarantee. It is clear in case after case that overzealous prosecutors have abused their power with little oversight, and too often they bring dubious and often unfounded indictments and then seek outrageous sentences that are politically motivated and target high-profile defendants. Instead of being penalized for their appalling actions, they are promoted or move on to bigger things.
Instead of being the exception, it is now the rule. It’s unacceptable, and people need to start holding these prosecutors accountable instead of promoting them.
Mark Vargas (@MarkAVargas) is a tech entrepreneur, political adviser, media strategist, and contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog.
