What would be the potential ‘upside’ of avoiding prosecution on one set of facts, on one set of statutes, in order to somehow fuel another investigation of other facts?
I’ve heard this theory offered up several times since Comey did the public sell-out, but I don’t get it.
I’m not the deep intellectual legal eagle that some FReepers are, but it just doesn’t make sense to me that this would be the reason to not prosecute the Hildebeast on the illegal handling of classified emails.
For others, prosecution on “X” charges does not preclude prosecution on “Y” charges, later.
I get that sometimes prosecutions are ‘timed’ based on the development of evidence of other crimes, and additional suspects, but that doesn’t seem to be in play, here.
I rather believe that the ‘fix’ was in; probably in no small part due to WJC’s ‘visit’ with LL in PHX. I can see a direct, and short, line from LL to Comey via a phone call, a text message, or a horse head in his bed. I believe it’s very likely that Bubba delivered a message that assured LL of continued employment in the First HRC Dynasty; all that was required was that she ‘convey’ to Comey that Vince Foster was not an accident, not a suicide.
Indicting her now would tip the FBI’s hand and could jeopardize the bigger investigation. Just sayin’
I’m no legal eagle either, but seem to me not only is there no upside but greater downside if they did try to prosecute. FBI director said they looked at all the facts and saw only great carelessness but no intent to break the law. So how does he pivot and now say the emails showed intention to break public corruptions laws? Comey made intent matter. So assuming they want to prosecute for corruption, they would probably have to show that her email set-up was intended to hide the corruption from Congress, from FOIA, from her boss the POTUS, from the inspector general and so on. He already said she did not intend to hide communications, it was just a bad personal decision to set up this server and a bad personal decision to delete thousands of emails. So imo, it would be hard to prosecute on corruption unless they had a real smoking gun and said “well she didn’t intend to hide her trail of corruption, but we found it anyway”. It’s ludicrous. What criminal commits crimes but doesn’t intend to hide the evidence? Deleting the emails would be imo vital to prove conscious intent to commit a crime, and cover it up. In other words, the act of covering it up shows that the criminal was aware of the crime and the evidence implicating the criminal. But Comey took that card out of the deck. They could likely never show conscious intent to commit a crime. It isn’t required to prosecute, but imo it makes it harder to convict. Again IANAL just my opinion.