Posted on 07/06/2016 8:29:22 AM PDT by VictimsRightsPro2a
Hillary Clinton likely dodged criminal charges Tuesday for a simple reason: the bar for bringing criminal charges against a politician, particularly a high public official, is so much higher than they are for anyone else. Prosecutions against such high public officials only go forward when there is “definitive” evidence. Evidence that prosecutors know will lead to a certain conviction.
Why do I say that? Because earlier in my career I was chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. I worked frequently with prosecutors. The reputational loss public officials face from criminal charges can be so great that prosecutors feel that they need to be sure of a conviction before going forward. For someone running for president, such as Hillary, that loss of reputation would be tremendous. -- It isn’t as if she will be able to pick right back up where she is now in the 2020 presidential race.
So much of debate during this election has been over a different standard applying to the Clintons. FBI Director James Comey’s decision Tuesday didn’t treat Hillary differently from other high public officials, but he clearly treated her differently from other Americans.
But politicians aren’t unique. CEOs of major companies or public figures in other areas also face loss of careers simply by being charged. Possibly, prosecutors are simply more sensitive to politicians because they work for them. Politicians also have a lot of political connections.
If Comey is to be faulted, it must be because he didn’t explain these differences in his statement on Tuesday. When he said, “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” he should have made it clear that they wouldn’t have done so against a high public official.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
But there was definitive evidence. He pretty much said so himself.
already posted
They don’t hesitate to bring charges against high officials if those high officials happen to be Republicans.
They throw everything but the kitchen sink at them. When the attempts fail, the one who lodged the charges gets a promotion.
I thought Lott was smart.
Given the power and authority vested in the Presidency, shouldn’t the bar be lower to ensure that only the best and most deserving are considered for that office?
Yeah, right. Tell that to Scooter Libby.
You mean like being Constitutionally eligible?
The reputational loss public officials face from criminal charges can be so great that prosecutors feel that they need to be sure of a conviction before going forward.
That is some BS there. Dem prosecutors bring charges to cause the reputational loss.
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.
Comey’s report was crafted like an opening argument for a jury. Then the final paragraph was a complete 180.
This is similar to the John Roberts obamacare ruling where he apparently changed his mind a few days before the ruling was handed down - and it is alleged that he wrote both sides of the argument.
Also similar to Joe Biden’s withdrawal speech. 95% of it was to announce his candidacy - and then the last paragraph was that he decided not to run.
It looks to me like they all changed their minds at the last minute after being threatened.
The 14th Amendment is an illusory right.
Comey didn’t recommend to prosecute for one reason, and one reason only: the FBI prolly has one or many emails from the Oval Office staff, or Obama himself to Hillary.
He ain’t opening that can of worms no matter how much integrity he has.
>>It looks to me like they all changed their minds at the last minute after being threatened.
Perhaps it like the POW blinking SOS during his recorded statement. Maybe they are asking themselves the same question we ask over and over again: “How can the people be so stupid and lazy that they won’t rise up against the Soros/Obama/Clinton corruptocracy?”
Perhaps....
Or maybe they are just making fun of us with the plot twist.
Progressives are good at control.(they’ve controlled FBI, CIA, IRS....)
All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.
Rejected. The article supports and defends the existence of multiple standards for different people depending on their status.
How is a candidate for public office, who currently holds no office, a "high public official."
I’ve been saying that for a while now.
Obi is linked to her illegal server, knew about it and did nothing. Just knowing it was illegal and doing/saying nothing is a crime as well.
It’s the MAD doctrine. They both would fry.
But that didn’t stop comey from saying it’s illegal, as well as verifying that there were TS/Secret/Confidential documents on her illegal server.
Uh. He’s got verified proof that she broke several laws. And intent be damned.
Yet she thinks she skated. The director of the FBI just confirmed to all that
She lied, committed several felonies, including her subordinates.
Laws are for little people my hinder, Obi knew. That’s the reason and that’s why she wasn’t recommended or referred to the DOJ for prosecution.
There are questions that need to be answered. Someone needs to start asking the questions very publicly. Mr Trump...... Because the rino’s won’t.
I sold you, you sold me,
Under the spreading chestnut tree.
He loves Big Brother.
Her slogan should be. Dick Nixon has nothing on me. With the crimes and lies, and now the 22 page outline of DNC dirty tricks, it can only be described as Nixonian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.