Now, it's Nathan's Turn

We've been hammering on David Gregory, who violated the DC laws against magazine possession in a very public and spectacular way.  He got a pass, which surprises no one, least of all us cynics who believe that government is out of control and exists to serve only the governing elite. So, now we turn our attention to the prosecutor who gave Gregory that pass, and learn that he is friends with Gregory's wife.

Courtesy of Professor Jacobson, it turns out that Gregory's wife and AG Irving Nathan participate in charity events together.

That's Gregory's wife on the left, and the AG that declined to prosecute on the right.  It would seem, as a minimum, he would have recused himself from the prosecution.  Instead, he sent a letter to the NBC lawyers explaining his decision to drop the charges.  An excerpt from that letter:

OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust.

Respectfully, Mr. AG, I object.  I would argue that prosecuting Mr. Gregory would serve public safety  interests and the best interests of the people of the District.  A prosecution would show The People that the law exists to serve everyone, that everyone is equal before the law, and that rich and poor, famous and anonymous, celebrity and obscure are all equal before the law.   If Mr. Gregory displayed that magazine to... how did you say it?

our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States

If his intent was to promote the First Amendment, then can I expect a pass if I display a magazine to promote the Second Amendment?

No, Mr. Nathan, you have only demonstrated that the law exists for the benefit of the privileged class and that it falls hardest on those who are anonymous and obscure; simple private citizens without political power.

Hat tip to Professor Jacobson.