The United States Attorney for the SDNY is her friend and colleague Carmen Garcia.
Carleton is a lesbian in a good relationship with Captain Demitria “Demi” Kofatos of the Westport, Connecticut Police Department.
A staff prosecutor at the SDNY, Sean Fitzpatrick, has come to believe:
“..... that the biggest domestic threat ws no longer Cosa Nostra but what the FBI called ‘racially motivated violent extremists’ - and the most active of these were White people who believed that non-Whites threatened them and the continued existence of the United States of America.”
One of the leaders of the movement is Sam Buchanan, a swift talking podcaster. While banned from the mainstream platforms he makes his way on to the internet through messaging apps, shared clips and a steadily growing email subscription service. He speaks eloquently, no doubt aided by his Harvard education, to the “voiceless Americans of European ancestry”.
He is following in the footsteps of Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones though his words are more inflammatory. He calls on the patriots of White America to act to defend the nation from the others intent on taking over. He names people he identifies as tyrants. Two have been killed.
Fitzpatrick, as the Chief of the National Security and International Narcotics unit better known by its acronym, NSIN, wants to investigate Buchanan for “seditious conspiracy”. (The SDNY is an acronym rich environment.) He needs to know if Buchanan has direct links with the killers.
As a precedent the prosecutors look back a thousand years to King Henry II asking his knights who will rid him of the meddlesome Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket.
In the highly polarized America of the mid-2020’s Garcia wants to proceed cautiously.
Assisting Carleton is Benny Dugan, a huge powerful man, who is an investigator for the office.
Buchanan is portrayed in every unflattering way possible from demagogue to sexual predator. He has not a single redeeming quality. He is a cardboard villain.
While an evil guy I wondered where the evidence would come for a conspiracy involving Buchanan. There is no physical evidence. There is an abundance of Buchanan making vile comments but where is the connection with the killers. There is a mid-plot twist to deal with that issue that felt contrived. The effort to distance the SDNY from the twist supported my feeling.
The pre-trial manoeuvring was well done. Comey knows U.S. Federal Court rules and practice. Legal issues are handled credibly.
I would have said one of the defence lawyers was incompetent and it was not credible that the lawyer represent an accused on a murder charge had I not watched several of the lawyers who have represented President Trump in recent years.
Jury selection is prolonged and challenging for the lawyers as they have to consider which potential jurors will move to becoming jurors as the prosecution and defence use their peremptory strikes.
The trial was interesting. It reminded me of many television shows on trials where the questioning is condensed to just the highlighted issue. The compression takes up fewer pages than a real examination or cross-examination. What is lost is the subtlety of how a witness testifies and responds on cross. The book could be taken directly to a T.V. series or movie. The producers would hardly have to cut any dialogue.
The trial addressed whether Buchanan was a just a loudmouth advocate for his vision of America or inciting his listeners to violence. What was the intent of his words? He never directed anyone to commit violence in his lengthy monologues on his show. What does it mean for a criminal prosecution when he says:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, as Jefferson said.
The Anglo-American-Canadian legal systems require accused to be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of the charges against them. It is an intentionally high burden. It is difficult to meet that standard on a charge of conspiracy.
While there is a shortage of analysis in the book there is a recognition of perspective with regard to the participants in the January 6 storming of the Capitol and the participants in riots after George Floyd was killed.
There is a conspiracy that has elements of plausibility and improbability.
As often occurs in crime fiction an informant of the State lies to strengthen the prosecution.
The book reminds me of many television shows in that the good people are great and the bad people are wicked. There is barely any gray in the characterizations.
FDR Drive is well written and crisply paced. I find it not possible to discuss a significant flaw in the structure of the book for me because it is too big a spoiler. I think I need to read another of Comey’s books to draw better conclusions about the author. I am sure he can write a book that is not a T.V. show in print.
I am very aware Comey is the former director of the FBI and a continuing target for the Trump Department of Justice. I reached my thoughts for this review without considering his non-authorial life. I may have more to say on the current references to the book in a Department of Justice brief in its effort to prosecute Comey.
Comey certainly knows the ins and outs of the U.S. legal system, Bill, so I can imagine that his discussions of the trial, etc. are well informed. It sounds as though the novel takes up some interesting legal questions (e.g. when do statements become incitement to violence). And the larger issue of the divisiveness in the U.S. rings true. I can see how you want to give Comey a little more consideration before deciding what your thoughts on his writing are.
ReplyDeleteMargot: Thanks for the comment. Comey, as I would expect from a litigator, tells the story well. The question at the heart of the book on incitement is very relevant. Words have consequences. My next post reflects on the divisiveness of America.
ReplyDelete