There is a reason we call our process of law and order the “justice system,” as it is meant to be fair and representational to all involved.
This means that officers of the court, whether judge, prosecutor, or district attorney, are charged with knowing the laws of the land inside and out and being able to rule objectively in all cases. However, it seems that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is no longer, if she ever was, able to do this.
The proof of this can be found in her recent dealings with the ongoing case against the McCloskey’s, a couple who defended their home and family with firearms when a mob of Black Lives Matter protesters broke into their privately owned neighborhood and property.
It is a verified fact that the state of Missouri has what is called a “Castle” policy, which permits citizens to defend their lives and property, even with deadly force. This, in and of itself, should have acquitted the couple of any punishment.
However, Gardner has still found a way to charge the homeowners with illegal weapons charges, even though both firearms were registered to the couple, never left their property, and, in fact, were never fired.
And, as it has been recently found out, one of the weapons, the handgun brandished by Mrs. McCloskey, was not even operational. She simply held it to deter the mob from coming any closer to their home and children who hid inside.
As you can see, the odds seem to be in the McCloskey’s favor. But even if that wasn’t the case, it looks Gardner would have a significant problem on her hands, as the court has just been asked to relieve her of her position in the case, as it seems she is using it political and monetary gain.
On Wednesday, the McCloskey’s attorney, Joel Schwartz, filed to have Gardner removed from the case, as emails were recently found that prove she was trying to raise money for her possible re-election based on her recent decision to charge the couple.
Doesn’t seem very objective, does it?
And that is precisely why Schwartz is asking for her to be disqualified from the case. He wrote in his recent filing, “Ms. Gardner’s decision may have been affected by her personal, political, financial, and professional interests, and that her neutrality, judgment, and ability to administer the law in an objective manner may have been compromised.”
Just take a look at this email her campaign sent out to potential supporters on July 17, a mere three days before Gardner filed charges against the couple. It was written, “Because you are a supporter of Kim, I want to make you aware of a few late-breaking developments that are making national headlines right now.”
It proceeded to directly mention the case against the McCloskeys and Gardner’s involvement in it. In addition, it drew in President Trump and the Missouri governor, accusing them both of not fighting for America but instead for “the two who pointed guns at peaceful citizens.”
And just a few lines later, the email begged for financial assistance so that Gardner could “fight back.”
And then again, this time after the McCloskey’s had been charged, on July 22, another campaign email went out. This one went into further detail about the case and placed Ms. Gardner up on a pedestal as one of the few who “stand against a system that elevates the privileged and powerful.”
And of course, near the end of the email, there were two links in which readers could donate to her campaign.
Now, it would be one thing if Gardner was campaigning using information from previous cases in which proved her goals and values. However, as the motion for her dismissal notes, the use of ongoing trials is entirely different, and there no instances in the history of Missouri in which a prosecutor has done this.
Schwartz noted that any “reasonable person” could see that she had personal reasons for seeing this case through and coming out in her favor. And for that reason, she should no longer be allowed to preside in any capacity for the case.
Not to mention, Gardner is already on probation for an ethics violation for not disclosing trip and donation information as required by law.
Suffice it to say, this case, as well as Gardner’s career, is looking to be finished rather quickly and not in her favor.
