New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin appointed Preet Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to investigate an alleged slowdown in traffic enforcement by the New Jersey State Police.
The slowdown, which occurred between July 2023 and March 2024, has drawn concerns that it may have been orchestrated to avoid accusations of racial bias in traffic stops.
The investigation’s central question: why was a special counsel appointed to probe a case involving New Jersey’s law enforcement agencies, and why was Bharara chosen for the task?
Platkin, citing the significant operational relationship between his office and the State Police, explained that appointing a special counsel was necessary to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.
He emphasized that Bharara would have full authority to investigate the matter, though Platkin would retain final decision-making power. Platkin also expressed concern that the traffic enforcement slowdown coincided with a spike in crashes and fatalities, underscoring the urgency of the investigation.
Some residents are questioning why no New Jersey-based lawyer could have been found to lead the probe. The appointment of Bharara, a high-profile figure with ties to national security and white-collar crime investigations, might raise more questions than it answers.
His record in handling complex cases, particularly involving financial fraud and terrorism, has made him a well-known figure in the legal and political spheres.
His tenure as U.S. Attorney also included high-profile cases that left many wondering about his effectiveness in addressing corporate and financial malfeasance.
For instance, despite his successful prosecution of high-profile cases such as insider trading and the Ponzi schemes of Bernard Madoff, Bharara’s office faced criticism for failing to bring to justice any significant financial executives involved in the 2008 financial crisis.
The inability to hold Wall Street executives accountable for their role in the global economic collapse continues to be a point of contention for many progressive critics. This absence of major accountability for the banking industry’s role in the financial meltdown has led some to question the true limits of Bharara’s prosecutorial ambition.
Moreover, some of the convictions Bharara’s office secured have been overturned on appeal, which raises further doubts about the long-term success and validity of his prosecutorial strategy.
While he is widely recognized for his efforts in fighting terrorism and organized crime, critics argue that his focus on certain high-profile cases may have distracted from more pressing systemic issues—issues like financial crimes that contributed to the economic instability affecting millions of Americans.
In light of these concerns, why did Platkin turn to an out-of-state figure like Bharara for an investigation that involves the New Jersey State Police? Was it necessary to appoint a special counsel to examine the slowdown in traffic enforcement, or could an experienced local attorney have handled the matter independently?
New Jersey’s law enforcement and justice systems have robust institutions, with local expertise available to investigate internal issues. By selecting Bharara, a well-known figure with ties to major national cases, Platkin may have inadvertently raised suspicions about the transparency and accountability of the investigation itself.
Additionally, Bharara’s legal background, while impressive in certain areas, does not suggest expertise in policing or the intricate details of traffic enforcement.
His previous work, such as his leadership in the prosecution of organized crime, terrorism, and financial fraud, contrasts with the more nuanced and locally-focused investigation of alleged misconduct within a state police force.
As New Jersey residents continue to grapple with the fallout from the alleged slowdown in traffic enforcement, the question remains: why was it necessary to bring in an outsider to investigate potential corruption within a state agency? Could local legal experts have performed this task without the need for a special counsel?
With Bharara’s somewhat mixed track record in addressing corporate crime and financial accountability, can he be expected to lead a successful investigation that addresses the concerns of New Jersey’s working-class residents, particularly in a case that involves the complex dynamics of racial bias and policing?
For now, Platkin and Bharara will continue their investigation, but New Jersey residents may be left wondering whether the involvement of an outsider was truly in the best interest of justice—and whether it reflects an ongoing challenge to hold accountable those responsible for wrongdoing in both state police departments and beyond.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.