|December 6th, 2018||#1|
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: South Texas
Wikipedia Does Not Name the "Disbarred" Judge
The Judge's name is "Baumgartner", and the "misconduct" involved his use of illegal drugs in the courthouse, and having sex (in the courthouse) with the woman that supplied him with the drugs.
I'm connecting this with the Defense Attorney for James Fields, who also has significant scandal associated with her career, to openly theorize that this may be part of a larger pattern, where a corrupt judiciary cherry-picks the worst attorneys and judges to handle cases that are "racially charged".
I disbelieve that Judge Baumgartner was randomly selected for this trial, and I wonder if the reason why he was selected was because it was commonly known that he had a drug problem and all the related issues that go along with it. I also wonder if Baumgartner didn't have OTHER problems, and that the "drug problem" is being used as a smoke screen. This might merely be the "smoke", used to obscure the "fire" that isn't being let into the public awareness. Meaning Baumgartner may have been involved in a lot worse than just doing drugs and having sex in his chambers, and the political establishment has an interest in keeping this information hidden.
One primary issue on Baumgartner that most people aren't going to know about, is that he was never actually convicted of an overt crime; instead he was given a plea arrangement where he pled guilty to Misprision of felony, which is supposedly an "archaic" crime. It's basically a crime to fail to report your awareness of a crime. Note this is not the same thing as pleading guilty to actually having committed the crime, and I wonder if the sweetheart deal offeredto the Judge was done to prevent some kind of catastrophic consequences. Meaning, if the Judge merely failed to report his own crimes, that means one thing, but if he actually pled guilty to having committed a crime, that would mean something else. Another interesting point is that, after the Judge pled guilty, the County Prosecutor was "flooded" with motions from convicted inmates seeking to have their convictions overturned and/or new trials.
Since that's bad, I wonder what "worse" would have looked like, and maybe that's the reason for the sweetheart deal.
I'm interested in general in "sweetheart" deals offered to the elite when they violate the law, as I suspect that if the full details of the criminal's misconduct were made public, it would undermine public faith in an obviously corrupt judiciary (FISA court and the surveillance of Donald Trump, using the NSA/surveillance infrastructure as a mechanism to do opposition research on a political candidate, in a hotly-contested and pivotal election.
Finally I'll add that courthouses are very small and hyper-compressed gossip-mills. Everyone knows everything about everyone, but no one says anything openly for fear of losing their job and/or their career. So the idea that Judge Baumgartner was suddenly discovered to have this problem, and only after the trial is total bullshit. Everyone knew (meaning the Prosecutor, and the Sheriff's Department), and no one said or did anything until long afterwards.
Last edited by Tyrone White; December 6th, 2018 at 11:28 AM.