Some Background
One of the more pleasant things that happened in one of our more recent elections here in Idaho was that Raul Labrador replaced Lawrence Wasden as the Attorney General for Idaho. Wasden was a Republican, as are most elected officials in Idaho, but being a Republican in this instance didn’t signify all that much. It was no surprise that principled conservatives were delighted when Labrador replaced him.
Now there are any number of scenarios that might account for the situation I describe below. Since I don’t know the why I am not going to speculate about the why, but I do know something about the that, and that the that looks really bad.
So Raul Labrador is far more conservative than our previous AG, and he ran on a platform that was staunchly in favor of common sense when it came to COVID and our basic rights. It was really refreshing, and I voted for him. And I am fully prepared to believe that what has happened is the result of something slipping through the cracks. In other words, Raul wouldn’t do this, right? Right. You wouldn’t think.
When Labrador was running against Wasden, he did so as a critic of Wasden when it came to Wasden simply rolling over when it came to our governor’s emergency lockdown orders. Look at this article, and note particularly this line: “Labrador also criticized Wasden’s defense of the governor’s emergency powers when Idaho legislators, angered by the governor’s emergency declarations during the pandemic, sought to seize his authority.” We will let pass the idea that the people’s legislature, trying to restrain a governor who was reaching over things in a way that gave us the word overreach, was somehow trying to “seize authority.” It was the governor who had actually seized stuff that was not his.
But we let that pass by.
Because in the meantime, up here in Moscow, there were others who were also critical of the governor’s overreach . . .
Even More Background
Back in the days of that COVID panic, when our government was doing more damage to Idaho than the virus was, our Moscow City Council passed some unnecessary measures—in the lockdown and masking line. They were keying off the governor, who was opposed by Raul. Still with me?
There was a bit of too-ing and fro-ing in all of it, but at one point our Council passed a measure that put strictures on gatherings. Our church decided to hold a protest against this at city hall, where our people would gather outside, sing three psalms and the doxology, and then go home. This was not that unusual in that we have held outdoor Christmas carol sings and psalm sings for years.
The ordinance explicitly exempted political protests and religious gatherings, and our gathering was both, but the police arrested three of our people anyhow. Shortly after this, two of my grandsons protested this unconstitutional and illegal action on the part of the city by means of putting up a bunch of stickers downtown that read “Soviet Moscow/Enforced Because We Care.” The boys were then charged under an ordinance that had seen about as much action as the one that banned kangaroo boxing, and then a bit later the charges against the three who had been arrested at the psalm sing were dropped—when the city realized that our psalm sing had been perfectly legal, even on their terms. Those arrested sued the city in federal court and won a tidy sum.
But the prosecution of the boys dragged on. The original thirteen misdemeanor counts were winnowed down to one, and then the county dropped charges against the younger one, and so one misdemeanor count went up before the Idaho Court of Appeals.
It was around this point when the Attorney General’s office stepped on a rake, the one with the tines up. Much to our dismay, once the Stickergate case went up before the Idaho Court of Appeals, the AG’s office, headed by Raul, took over the prosecution on behalf of the city of Moscow. What the heck? Somebody needs to inform Raul that when he is out of the office some of his staff must be misbehaving—running up and down in the hallways in their socks, holding slippy slide contests.
Having been denied at the Idaho Court of Appeals, we then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the longest of long shots. They declined to take up this most interesting of cases, a decision that baffles. Raul’s office kept the case against us as it went up to SCOTUS also.
So Try to Explain This . . .
But in the meantime, Raul needs to ask somebody for a report. His supporters out here in Idaho, when they find out, will start to say, “what the heck?” and Raul needs to repeat this very same question all throughout his office. “What the heck?”
Let me fit the whole thing into a tight little package. Raul took a strong stand against the governor’s overreach. We here in Moscow agreed with that stand Raul took. We registered that agreement in various ways—psalm sings, continuing to hold worship services, stickers of protest, and so on. Our stand here in Moscow was vindicated by a federal court. And once that misdemeanor case, one that has cost six-figures to date, came up to the state level, the office of the man who ran against this kind of jitney tyranny took over the prosecution? And when we appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Raul Labrador’s office remained on the other side, this being, I will remind you, the wrong side.
So that Moscow doesn’t have to pay for their own hubris anymore? The taxpayers of Idaho are going to do it? To narrow this down further, the people who voted for Raul are going to pay for this? We have to pay for a petty, vindictive, very selective prosecution? Raul’s office is going to make the case that opposition to gubernatorial overreach must be conducted by trained lawyers, and never by educated and thoughtful young men who love liberty?
But Wait . . .There Is Some Good News
If you want more of the details, you can find them under Update #15 here—or in the previous post.
The good news is that while the criminal case was wending its way up to the Supreme Court, there to be denied, we had filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Moscow in federal court for various and sundry misdeeds. The problem was that it is awfully hard to win a civil suit that would undo the damage done by a wrongful prosecution and criminal conviction. The key word there is conviction. That suit could not go forward until the criminal case was over and done, which it now is.
But when the jury found Rory guilty of having affixed the sticker, the judge withheld judgment while the appeals were going forward. Not sure why, but that’s what happened. And then, when the process was all over, the judge (a new one) just dismissed the case, thus expunging the record. There was no conviction. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and . . . no conviction. No nothing. This means that the civil lawsuit is in a stronger position.
So prayers are needed, and donations are gratefully accepted.
Back to Raul . . . What This Means Going Forward
Raul Labrador is clearly a man who wants to go places, and it is doubtful to me that the office of the Attorney General is going to satisfy what he likely has in mind. And up to this point, I sure wouldn’t have minded him as governor, or a senator, compared to what we usually get.
But now it is starting to look to me as though Raul might become . . . well, what we usually get. But we weren’t trying to vote in a Wasden 2.0.
The AG’s office proceeded with this pig’s ear of a case, all the way up to SCOTUS, and my grandson was denied justice because of a prosecution conducted and pursued by Raul’s office. Huh. If the weirdness gets any weirder, I do have an untapped reservoir of strange and gaudy adjectives.