Interesting. Yeah, I see your point. The Judge used the word "exonerated" but it was not by a jury. Never went to trial it would appear. But the case was weak enough he decided not to prosecute, I guess.Napolitano hasn’t been the sharpest in his commentary lately - I’d like to see some evidence of the exoneration, as opposed to a decision not to charge.
. . . but if the case is no stronger now than it was then - and why should it be, exactly? - then the decision to prosecute now is political. It is for the purpose of weakening the POTUS.It does not further the interests of justice, unless there was corruption in the initial decision not to prosecute. Which is probably not a case that Rosenstein would be eager to make.
It might not literally be “double jeopardy,” in a technical sense, but it sure is a kissing cousin to it.
. . . which makes it a candidate for consideration underPeople have a right to legally serve a presidential candidate without fear of legal consequences.
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And we-the-people have the right to hear out, and accept or reject, a candidate without reference to a second guess prosecution. To hold otherwise is to allow the government to control who is able to participate in the election process without due process of law. In that sense, the First Amendment is implicated.