NYC Prosecutor Reveals Disturbing New Details on Drug War & Trump Indictments | Jordan Rubin

Added: Aug 9, 2023

Rubin begins by describing his transition from law enforcement to media and writing. He explains that he loved being a prosecutor but decided to embark on a new adventure in media. He then discusses his experience as a narcotics prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's office. He explains that most people in the office start right out of law school, so he was in his mid-20s when he began his career. He describes the work as a mix of long-term investigations, wiretaps, and lower-level street cases. He also mentions the opportunity to work on international cases involving cartels and extraditions. When asked about the motivation behind prosecuting drug cases, Rubin explains that it is not about winning the war on drugs but rather about going after the "bad guys." He acknowledges that the war on drugs cannot be won and that there will always be another case to work on. However, he believes that taking down high-level drug traffickers can provide a sense of accomplishment, even if it doesn't solve the larger problem. The conversation then shifts to the Analog Act, a federal law that allows the government to prosecute individuals for selling substances that are chemically similar to illegal drugs. Rubin explains that the law was enacted in response to the emergence of designer drugs in the 1980s and 1990s, which were created by altering the chemical structure of illegal substances. He highlights the vague language and broad application of the Analog Act, which is based on the concept of "substantial similarity." Rubin argues that this concept is subjective and difficult to define, making it challenging for prosecutors to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor also discusses the rise of synthetic drugs like K2 and Spice, which became popular in the mid to late 2000s. He suggests that if cannabis had not been illegal, these synthetic drugs may not have become as prevalent. He explains that these drugs were seen as substitutes for cannabis and were often stronger than traditional marijuana. Rubin then discusses the case of Brian Burton and Ryan Ben, who were prosecuted under the Analog Act for selling synthetic marijuana. He explains that the prosecution argued that the substances sold by Burton and Ben were substantially similar to illegal drugs, despite the lack of scientific consensus on the matter. The defense, on the other hand, argued that the substances were not intended for human consumption and therefore should not be subject to the Analog Act. Rubin highlights the issues surrounding the prosecution's case, including the lack of evidence linking the substances to specific deaths and the difficulty in proving causation. He also discusses the use of civil asset forfeiture in the case, which allowed the government to seize the defendants' assets before they were even charged with a crime. The podcast also touches on the Fentanyl Act, a law that expands the scope of the Analog Act to include fentanyl-related substances. Rubin explains that this law has faced criticism for its potential to over-criminalize and hinder scientific research. He argues that the Analog Act is a flawed and problematic law that allows for the prosecution of individuals based on subjective criteria. He suggests that the law should be reevaluated and potentially repealed to address the issues it presents. The conversation then shifts to the Trump indictments and the potential legal implications for the former president. Rubin explains that there are different options available, including self-pardoning or having another Republican president pardon him. However, he notes that self-pardoning is an open legal question and that the outcome of a trial is not predetermined. Rubin emphasizes that it is possible for Trump to be found guilty or not guilty, depending on the evidence and arguments presented. The discussion also touches on the broader issue of corruption in politics. Rubin acknowledges that corruption is prevalent in politics but highlights the issue of hypocrisy, where politicians go after one person for corruption while ignoring others who engage in similar behavior. He argues that this hypocrisy undermines trust in the political system and angers people. The podcast briefly mentions the Fox News lawsuit against Dominion Voting Systems. Rubin explains that his role as a legal analyst is to focus on breaking down the legal issues rather than speculating on the implications of the lawsuit. He suggests that if someone believes false information is being spread, they should sue the person responsible. In conclusion, the podcast provides a comprehensive analysis of the Analog Act, drug prosecutions, and the Trump indictments. Rubin highlights the flaws and challenges associated with the Analog Act, arguing for its reevaluation and potential repeal. He also discusses the potential legal implications for Trump and the broader issue of corruption in politics. The podcast offers insights into these complex legal and political topics, providing a nuanced perspective on recent developments.