Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    D.C. Atty Gen Irvin Nathan — “No other involvement with Mrs. Gregory than that one event”

    D.C. Atty Gen Irvin Nathan — “No other involvement with Mrs. Gregory than that one event”

    Late last Friday afternoon, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan released a letter determining not to prosecute David Gregory “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law.”

    After the letter was released, Legal Insurrection discovered that Attorney General Nathan had participated in a mock trial event at the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, D.C. in April 2011 with Beth Wilkinson, the wife of David Gregory (who also was in attendance).

    That raised the question as to whether there was any more extensive professional or social relationship, and whether the Attorney General should have recused himself from Gregory’s criminal investigation.

    Former federal prosecutor William G. Otis wrote that that one event was enough to make recusal the better path given the nature of the case and the potential defendant, a position with which Paul Mirengoff agrees.

    On Monday of this week I reached out to Attorney General Irvin, through his press spokesman Ted Gest, with the following questions:

    1. To what extent did the Attorney General know the Gregories? We know the Attorney General and Mrs. Gregory (Beth Wilkinson) participated together in a mock trial at the Shakespeare Theater in April 2011. Did he have any other personal or professional interactions?

    2. Did the Attorney General ever consider recusing himself from the decision whether to prosecute? If yes, why did he not recuse himself?

    Gest’s response, received today, was:

    Mr. Nathan is not a friend of the Gregories and has had no business or social connections with him. He did not take part in any event with Mrs. Gregory other than the one you mentioned. This was not a reason to recuse himself from the recent ammunition magazine matter, on which we fully explained our decision in a letter last Friday.

    I followed up, just to make clear

    Just to clarify, other than that one event, Mr. Nathan never met or had any dealings with either of the Gregories?

    To which Gest responded:

    No other involvement with Mrs. Gregory than that one event and he has no business or social connections with them.

    So no dealings with them. I can’t absolutely say they “never met.”

    There you have it.  Absent some other revelation, the Shakespeare Theater charity mock trial appears to be the extent of the interaction between Attorney General Nathan and the Gregories.

    I stand by my position as to what I would have done:

    If I were in that position, having interacted socially with the subject of the potential prosecution and his wife, even if only once, I would have felt uncomfortable as to whether I could make a truly impartial decision whether to prosecute.  Even if I felt I could, I would have worried how it would be perceived by the public if a photo of the event like this one came out:

    Beth Wilkinson and Irv Nathan


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    NavyMustang | January 17, 2013 at 8:32 am

    Hmmmmm. Where have I heard this before? Just can’t place it. Well, it will come to me eventually.

    As an attorney who occasionally volunteers for mock trial events – yeah.

    These events are all about schmoozing with other lawyers and rubbing elbows with people who you might leverage to get more business (or whose names you might drop to get more business).

    We really are that shameless.

    I think it’s more disturbing that Gregory is allowed to violate the law with impugnity because of his status rather than any potential conflict of interest by the AG.

    Dymphna of the Gates of Vienna blog has written:

    “We presume that Blogspot made us one of those “bumps in the road”. We had mostly everything backed up – we always expected this- and will be up and running after a few days’ heavy labor.

    “No communication from The Castle, of course. Just tried to access the blog as usual and got a ‘this blog has been deleted’ page.

    “Gee, just in time for the inauguration, too. Now we won’t be able to not cover it again.


    So the obvious follow up question:
    Mr. Nathan, as I understand your logic, since Mr. Gregory’s position and personal relationship to you had anything to do with your decision, can you assure all of us that possessing and brandishing a magazine of the type Mr. Gregory possesses would not result in any legal activity?

    BannedbytheGuardian | January 17, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    T’eo & Notre Dame still big f*ckin liars .

    I like the down tickers above . Catholics or football fans?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend