Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

D.C. Atty Gen Irvin Nathan — “No other involvement with Mrs. Gregory than that one event”

D.C. Atty Gen Irvin Nathan — “No other involvement with Mrs. Gregory than that one event”

Late last Friday afternoon, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan released a letter determining not to prosecute David Gregory “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law.”

After the letter was released, Legal Insurrection discovered that Attorney General Nathan had participated in a mock trial event at the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, D.C. in April 2011 with Beth Wilkinson, the wife of David Gregory (who also was in attendance).

That raised the question as to whether there was any more extensive professional or social relationship, and whether the Attorney General should have recused himself from Gregory’s criminal investigation.

Former federal prosecutor William G. Otis wrote that that one event was enough to make recusal the better path given the nature of the case and the potential defendant, a position with which Paul Mirengoff agrees.

On Monday of this week I reached out to Attorney General Irvin, through his press spokesman Ted Gest, with the following questions:

1. To what extent did the Attorney General know the Gregories? We know the Attorney General and Mrs. Gregory (Beth Wilkinson) participated together in a mock trial at the Shakespeare Theater in April 2011. Did he have any other personal or professional interactions?

2. Did the Attorney General ever consider recusing himself from the decision whether to prosecute? If yes, why did he not recuse himself?

Gest’s response, received today, was:

Mr. Nathan is not a friend of the Gregories and has had no business or social connections with him. He did not take part in any event with Mrs. Gregory other than the one you mentioned. This was not a reason to recuse himself from the recent ammunition magazine matter, on which we fully explained our decision in a letter last Friday.

I followed up, just to make clear

Just to clarify, other than that one event, Mr. Nathan never met or had any dealings with either of the Gregories?

To which Gest responded:

No other involvement with Mrs. Gregory than that one event and he has no business or social connections with them.

So no dealings with them. I can’t absolutely say they “never met.”

There you have it.  Absent some other revelation, the Shakespeare Theater charity mock trial appears to be the extent of the interaction between Attorney General Nathan and the Gregories.

I stand by my position as to what I would have done:

If I were in that position, having interacted socially with the subject of the potential prosecution and his wife, even if only once, I would have felt uncomfortable as to whether I could make a truly impartial decision whether to prosecute.  Even if I felt I could, I would have worried how it would be perceived by the public if a photo of the event like this one came out:

Beth Wilkinson and Irv Nathan

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

TrooperJohnSmith | January 16, 2013 at 6:05 pm

They’re only lying if their lips are moving.

At this point, I don’t believe anyone who is within 157-degrees of separation from Barack Obama.

When a few politicians are corrupt, they can be removed and the integrity of the government restored. At some point, the system itself becomes corrupt and no amount of personnel cleansings can redeem it, thus replacing the system becomes the only option. In fifty years, our grandchildren will know where we are in relation to that point.

I expect after the “heat” has died down, there might possibly be a Friday document dump with something to the effect of “Oops, we really meant they babysat their children and played poker with them every week for a year. But other than that, no real contact. Well, maybe one blood donation, but that’s it!”

So I guess Gregory is exempt from D.C.’s assault weapons ban because he’s a liberal, and not because he’s friends with the person deciding whether to prosecute.

“In fact, if absurdity were a defense to prosecutions or other adverse legal actions, an enormous swathe of our regulatory state would be swept away. Can we even speak of the rule of law as a meaningful concept when we combine an explosive regulatory state with near-absolute prosecutorial discretion?”
—David French

At least a decade ago, I took perverse glee in the story of a nice, dedicated environmental warrior. A PhD, with a wife who was an environment writer (if memory serves), this nice fella made a very healthy living creating and improving wetlands environments…mostly for wealthy sportsman who liked wing-shooting and fishing. He was good at it, and the critters benefited all around.

That was rolling along swell until a couple of ambitious Federal prosecutors creatively read wetlands regulations to make our poor life-time environmentalist a felon.

Don’t recall the outcome, but he was facing decades in prison and had already lost most of his net worth.

No other involvement with Mrs. Gregory than that one event and he has no business or social connections with them.

Yeah, right … and Eric Holder had no prior knowledge of Fast and Furious either.

As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Nathan should be fired for this statement, “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law,” when determining to not prosecute.

Oh well. Just one more reason added to the many on why I will never visit D.C.

Well, if the mock trial was a charity event, is it really unlikely that there would have been no preliminary get togethers or post trial parties? It’s Washington, after all.

Professor, you might still ask these questions.

To emphasize the importance of “equal protection” in the 14th amendment, Mr. Nathan should have prosecuted with a recommendation of community service or a suspended sentence. The violation was flagrant and willful; there is no way to skate around that.

Justice would have been properly served; right now, this leaves quite an odor to me, and perhaps the White House applied pressure. Prof. Jacobson, can you obtain a copy of the letter NBC attorneys [Levine et al] wrote to Mr. Nathan in this regard?

BannedbytheGuardian | January 16, 2013 at 7:57 pm

Might be true. If they go outside the house they might get shot by peasants or backstabbed by colleagues.

I always get my picture taken with perfect strangers! Don’t you?

I wonder if Mrs. Gregory (Beth Wilkinson) has this picture in her office right under the horseshoe.

it depends on what the meaning of (insert those words you asked about) is…

“Mr. Nathan is not a friend of the Gregories and has had no business or social connections with him. He did not take part in any event with Mrs. Gregory other than the one you mentioned.”

The 2 sentences contradict each other. It says “no social connections” YET, they did at that function with the picture, which the spokesperson readily admits.

That picture says it all. It may not be worth a thousand words, but it’s worth enough to know that he should not have been involved.

Henry Hawkins | January 16, 2013 at 9:22 pm

Would the next conservative guest on David Gregory’s please PLEASE whip out a 30 round magazine and we’ll see what happens.

[…] DAVID GREGORY UPDATE: D.C. Atty Gen Irvin Nathan — “No other involvement with Mrs. Gregory than that one event.” […]

Excuse me, but isn’t that Mrs Gregory’s arm around AG Nelson’s shoulder? Pretty chummy for two people who only met once.

The useful part of this exchange is clear, and thank you to the Professor for getting it.

The point: if in the future new information surfaces that shows Mr. Nathan and Mrs. Gregory to know each other, socially or professionally, the statements today will impeach him.

In a normal world that would be enough to launch a bar complaint and investigation. Whether it does for a member of the nomenklatura I do not know.

The Professor, bless him, is thinking like a lawyer: pin them down. Get them on records. Then investigate like hell.

FreshPondIndians | January 16, 2013 at 11:18 pm

Hey Professor…

Here is a story (with pictures) of the original play that these two characters acted in

http://www.bisnow.com/dc-legal/scotus-goes-wilde/

Apparently, three members of the actual SCOTUS were involved as well…

Among the legal distinctions which have become very blurry under Obama is the difference between “prosecutorial discretion” and “selective prosecution.”

BannedbytheGuardian | January 17, 2013 at 1:23 am

Notre Dame just came out with a porker about their football star lying about a dead girlfriend.

FGS – even catholic institutions are f**ckin liars.

BREAKING:

THE GATES OF VIENNA BLOG (AN HONEST BLOG, DEDICATED TO EXPOSING RADICAL ISLAM’S INFLUENCE IN AMERICA) HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN BY GOOGLE. EVEN THEIR URL IS GONE.

MORE INFO AS IT COMES IN…

Slartibartfast | January 17, 2013 at 7:56 am

Just to clarify, other than that one event, Mr. Nathan never met or had any dealings with either of the Gregories?

To which Gest responded:

No other involvement with Mrs. Gregory than that one event and he has no business or social connections with them.

Objection: unresponsive.

[…] No, Irv Nathan doesn’t know David Gregory or his lawyer wife (Legal Insurrection) […]

Slartibartfast | January 17, 2013 at 8:06 am

BREAKING: MY CAPS LOCK KEY HAS FALLEN, AND CAN’T GET UP.

MORE INFO AS IT COMES IN…

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Slartibartfast. | January 17, 2013 at 11:07 am

    lol

    Did the other kids in your sixth grade class laugh as hard as Henry?

    But don’t lose momentum — top it off with this one:
    Barry was a 1st grade student and he asked his teacher to go to the bathroom. She said he could go if he recited the alphabet. So he said ” a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o q r s t u v w x y z.” When the teacher asked him what happened to the the p, he replies ‘Its running down my leg.'”

    You’ll get big laughs, but don’t let the teacher hear it.

    Just curious: what’s the consensus (that word means, ‘general opinion’) among you kids about that teacher in Florida getting fired for having been porn?

      Henry Hawkins in reply to TheFineReport.com. | January 17, 2013 at 1:19 pm

      “Just curious: what’s the consensus (that word means, ‘general opinion’) among you kids about that teacher in Florida getting fired for having been porn?”

      I’d be happy to reply if you would kindly repost your question in English.

      annoyedbeyond in reply to TheFineReport.com. | January 18, 2013 at 9:13 am

      And yet…the blog you were talking about is up. With new posts and…just everything.

      So you needed the fauxtrage why?

Hmmmmm. Where have I heard this before? Just can’t place it. Well, it will come to me eventually.

As an attorney who occasionally volunteers for mock trial events – yeah.

These events are all about schmoozing with other lawyers and rubbing elbows with people who you might leverage to get more business (or whose names you might drop to get more business).

We really are that shameless.

I think it’s more disturbing that Gregory is allowed to violate the law with impugnity because of his status rather than any potential conflict of interest by the AG.

Dymphna of the Gates of Vienna blog has written:

“We presume that Blogspot made us one of those “bumps in the road”. We had mostly everything backed up – we always expected this- and will be up and running after a few days’ heavy labor.

“No communication from The Castle, of course. Just tried to access the blog as usual and got a ‘this blog has been deleted’ page.

“Gee, just in time for the inauguration, too. Now we won’t be able to not cover it again.

Dymphna

So the obvious follow up question:
Mr. Nathan, as I understand your logic, since Mr. Gregory’s position and personal relationship to you had anything to do with your decision, can you assure all of us that possessing and brandishing a magazine of the type Mr. Gregory possesses would not result in any legal activity?

BannedbytheGuardian | January 17, 2013 at 6:36 pm

T’eo & Notre Dame still big f*ckin liars .

I like the down tickers above . Catholics or football fans?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend