The shocking abuse of power in the Yvette Wang Bail Hearing
The Constitution of the United States of America vests authority in judges as officers of the courts. These have the sole judicial power and jurisdiction over cases “in law and equity.”
Markedly absent in our most authoritative founding document is mention of a Department of Justice (DOJ), administrators, and governmental prosecutors. Amendment VI of the Constitution unpacks the fundamental rights of the accused, which should be ironclad.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Yet, the Department of Justice seems to be abusing these most basic and sacred rights. Too often, this agency has in effect tried accused parties before they ever see a courtroom.
This troubling trend is transparent in the case of Yvette Wang, who was first presented with conditional bail, until the DOJ changed its mind. What has ensued has been a keystone cops kind of scramble to find “evidence” and “new findings” to support an a priori assertion. The flimsy motions by the DOJ to deny bail to a woman presumed innocent would be comical if it were not for the fact that her very life is on the line.
The DOJ’s continued attempts to keep Wang incarcerated pending trial fly in the face of the 6th Amendment, but no wonder—these prosecutors admitted they are working closely and on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The Communist Party has truly infiltrated our most sacred judicial processes, and that must be put to a stop. Here. Now.
On April 4, Wang endured a two-hour hearing where DOJ prosecutors attempted to make a case for denying her bail, on speculation that she could be a flight risk. Their arguments were so weak that Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered the government to provide certain documents and lay a foundation to support their inferences, which the court was not convinced were factual. The government failed to do so.
Instead, the government introduced new…