The public mouths "rule of law," but doesn't really have a clue what that is. They imagine it to be a certain thing, but apply ZERO legal analysis. Just state the conclusion, and viola, it must be so.
TREASON! TREASON!
I've made a few hundred remarks about what the law actually is, and how it might apply to the facts, and so on.
Total waste of time.
Boom - The word used before absolutely nothing happens
These are politically motivated crimes - FISA, the Clinton server, the Russia Hoax, IRS targeting, etc.
But, Trump retained, re-assigned, or promoted almost every top executive in Obama’s DOJ and FBI.
Trump also refuses to assist any organization that is trying to obtain documents that show political corruption at the DOJ and FBI - there are literally dozens of FOIA requests and lawsuits that have been pending for years.
That's either political insanity - or it's absolutely deliberate.
Yep.
For one thing, the whole point of FISA courts is that they are allowed to bypass normal legal standards and procedures.
The DOJ has well over 100,000 employees, and a budget of $30 billion. There may be up to a few hundred of those employees that don’t hate Pres. Trump or anyone conservative.
The coup is political, and demands a political solution. If enough voters don’t care, the winners and losers are clear, regardless of abstract concepts of justice.
I do have some experience with this “law and facts” issue in the real world.
My experience is that if a prosecutor is very determined to pursue a case, and is willing to commit the necessary resources to get it done, they can find the appropriate legal framework to match the relevant facts and will be able to convince a grand jury to get an indictment. (Conviction, of course, may be more difficult.)
If they are lukewarm or are not that interested in the case (for whatever reason) they can easily decide not to pursue it.
FISA abuse is a _big_ deal, and this should be a very high priority case.
Failure to pursue it is indicative of a lack of will, imho, and is not a function of either the law or the facts.
It's been pointed out that specific laws have been broken, but you ignore them.
You and Trey.
The public mouths "rule of law," but doesn't really have a clue what that is. They imagine it to be a certain thing, but apply ZERO legal analysis. Just state the conclusion, and viola, it must be so. TREASON! TREASON!
Straman fallacy. Just because people falsely claim "treason", doesn't mean that there weren't real laws that were broken.