Posted on 11/19/2015 7:41:33 AM PST by SeekAndFind
This seems to be one of the more popular phrases popping up in both the State Department and the Justice Department these days: prosecutorial discretion. Even though the phrase seems fairly self-explanatory, here’s a quick definition:
Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.
The reason the term is important is because it’s cropping up more and more in certain high profile cases inside the Obama administration. National Review’s Joel Gehrke comes up with the latest example and it involves none other than Lois Lerner. She was due for a meeting with some legal eagles after her hearings on the Hill, but that never came to pass. The decision to pass on the matter lands in the lap of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Justice Department officials used “prosecutorial discretion"to shelter former IRS official Lois Lerner from a grand jury after she was held in contempt of Congress.
"I believe that in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the matter was handled and was resolved,"Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning.
The administration's invocation of prosecutorial discretion has become familiar to lawmakers through the debate over President Obama's recent series of executive orders on immigration, and it frustrates Republicans. Lynch's answer particularly annoyed Representative Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), who led much of the investigation into the IRS's Tea Party targeting scandal when he was chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
This exchange clearly had Issa feeling a bit on edge and he cited a bit of law which was intended to show that Lynch was falling down on the job. He read to her from the federal statute governing congressional contempt citations. It’s an interesting approach on his part. Here’s the relevant text. (Emphasis added)
Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, recÂords, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.
I’ll have to pitch this one to the professionals, but it seems to be a rather exceptional set of circumstances under the law. In normal practice for criminal cases around the country, law enforcement gathers evidence to make the best case they can and turns it over to the District Attorney who may or may not bring the case to trial. Most commonly, if they find the case so weak that they’re pretty sure they’ll lose in front of a jury, they’ll just pass on prosecuting it. Nothing wrong with that, and it saves the taxpayers a lot of time and money in chasing cases which most likely can’t be won. If it’s a case involving someone they have a personal connection to they’re suppose to recuse themselves.
This statue, as it applies to Contempt of Congress, seems to be worded a bit differently. It clearly removes any options from the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House in terms of certifying and processing the case by saying, “and he shall so certify.” Then, the appropriate United States Attorney – being somebody from the Justice Department – is told that it is their “duty” to bring the matter before a grand jury. Does this remove the option of just passing on the case? Did Lynch break the law?
For another case of prosecutorial discretion, reference Huma Abedin’s embezzlement case.
looks like 2 qualifiers ( or maybe just 1 with a what & a how) involved. Have they been done ?
1.
and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session,
2.
a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House
Another reason why Ted Cruz would be a great attorney general with Trump as Potus and Palin as VP.
Cruz with his legal knowledge and his zero tolerance to rats who abuse our legal system would drive the privileged rats/GOPe into terminal depression.
See my tagline.
OBAMA HAS A LOT MORE REASONS TO BE IMPEACHED
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2014/06/30/thousands-of-illegal-immigrants-bused-across-us/
“....... important is because it’s cropping up more and more in certain high profile cases inside the Obama administration.”.........
They want to get used to this term so that when odumbo’s turn comes around they can use it.
Who in this country is REALLY above the law? The laws have been written and put in place so that WHOMEVER breaks that law should be charged. If those two women were republicans their asses would be in jail already, no exceptions. Charge them ASAP and let the courts decide, not some hack lawyer who was “appointed” and not voted into office.
“We are the law.”
Lynch has done us the favor of giving her definition of “prosecutorial discretion”:
Political corruption.
And, of course, a clue as to her decision in the hillary treason case.
She was doing Obama’s bidding.....of course he wasn’t going to prosecute her!
Amen!
We now have a female version of Eric Holder at the DOJ.
This question needs to be asked of every presidential candidate. "Will you prosecute Lois Lerner, and Eric Holder, and every other member of the Executive Department who have obviously chosen to use "memory lapses" to lie to or to ignore the legitimate powers of Congress?
The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Check out the entire thing :
No pardon is possible as a "preemptive crime"
If she hasn't been indicted and found guilty, no pardon can apply. Blanket pardons, as far as I have learned, cannot Constitutionally exist.
The only remaining question is, what is the statute of limitations for Treason or "Abuse of Power," as impeachable offenses?
Obozo has no choice. I believe if he allows her to go down she will take him down with her.
Obozo has NO choice. He has to cover her to cover his own a$$.
I knew that from the first time I saw her. No need to ask what made it obvious.
Of course, her actions have confirmed that first impression with no room for doubt.
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.