At any given time, the Department of Justice is involved in no small number of cases, and ones taking place all over the country. But as it turns out, there seems to be a rather embarrassing problem in how the DOJ is first choosing venue locations and then winning cases.
Case and point comes to us from Los Angeles, where former Nebraska GOP Representative Jeff Fortenberry was once convicted of lying to the FBI and allowing illegal contributions to be made to his political campaign.
As The Hill reported, originally, Fortenberry was found guilty and convicted of such crimes. However, he has since appealed that decision by the LA court.
On December 26, US District Judge James Donato ruled that the conviction was overturned.
Now, it’s important to point out here that the reversal of the conviction doesn’t really have much to do with the supposed crime at all. Fortenberry supposedly accepted a $30,200 contribution to his campaign from a Nigerian businessman, something that is a direct violation of campaign finance laws.
Fortenberry claims he didn’t know about the contribution in the least. But, the just as corrupt Biden FBI claims they listened to a phone call in which Fortenberry was told about the contribution.
But like I said, the particulars of FBI vs. Fortenberry aren’t the real issue or why the case was overturned.
Instead, it seems the DOJ chose an incorrect venue for the case to take place, one in which they knew they would get a conviction but one that isn’t constitutional.
You see, as a then-Nebraska Representative, the FBI interviewed Fortenberry in his home in Lincoln. Later, he was interviewed at his lawyer’s office in Washington, DC.
But when it came time for the actual trial, the DOJ said it made the most sense to try him in the very liberal district of Los Angeles.
Why? Well, supposedly, the investigation was being run by the Los Angeles FBI field office.
But none of the three appeals court judges bought this claim.
Instead, they claim the DOJ was essentially venue shopping, choosing a district where both judges and jury members would likely believe the liberal DOJ and FBI over a Republican.
As Judge Donato wrote, “We conclude that an effects-based test for venue of a Section 1001 offense has no support in the Constitution, the text of the statute, or historical practice.” He added, “The Constitution does not permit this. Fortenberry’s convictions are reversed so that he may be retried, if at all, in a proper venue.”
And no, these are not conservative judges. Obama appointed Donato, and his two counterparts, Gabriel Sanchez and Salvador Mendoza Jr, were appointed by Biden.
Now, just what this means for Fortenberry is a bit up in the air. As Donato mentioned, there is an opportunity for him to never be retried. Or he could be retried (in a correct venue) and found guilty again.
However, the case has implications for much more than just Fortenberry.
As I mentioned, the DOJ is involved in a lot of cases. And if the venue shopped for one, what is the likelihood that it did so for others? Say, perhaps one involving a former president and election interference?
Or what about one against a Democrat politician accused of bribery and more?
As Just the News recently reported, a total of three out of ten DOJ cases have been reversed or thrown out completely in the last two decades for the very same reason.
In fact, one of those cases was against the same bribery-involved politician I just mentioned.
In 2017, Democratic New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez was prosecuted for bribery charges. It ended in a mistrial when jurors couldn’t agree on a verdict. Then, in 2018, some of those charges were acquitted. The DOJ later dropped all remaining charges.
Now, Menendez faces new but similar charges. But as with Fortenberry, Menendez is being tried in a location that is not his home state. Instead, he’s being tried in New York, where the likelihood of him having support from jurors is much slimmer.
Similarly, Donald Trump is being tried in two separate DOJ cases, one in the District of Columbia and one in Florida. Should it appear that either location was chosen for partisan reasons, these, too, could be thrown out.
Needless to say, this is the last thing Biden’s DOJ needs at a time like this.
