Posted on 07/31/2019 6:18:44 PM PDT by bitt
Comey,like Hillary,will never be charged.If I had committed half of their crimes,I would already be under the jail...
There are bigger fish to fry
All hail INTENT! Our new standard!
All hail INTENT! Our new standard!
Comey can never be indicted and convicted because that would remove the “obstruction” charge from POTUS. The Uniparty wants POTUS under that cloud for the duration of his stay in the White House.
Each case stands on its own evidence and fact pattern.
_____________________________________________________
I understand that as the legal position.
However, this is a politically-fraught case and Comey isn’t the only perp.
Are you saying there are no political considerations in this decision? Don’t you think Barr et al are thinking wider than just Comey leaking some documents?
I find it difficult to believe dry, legalistic evaluations are the sole considerations in this. Progs & their media machine must be on tenterhooks and they are bound to have gamed out varying hypocritical and shrill responses.
Comey’s posse was able to create exploitable doubt by officially classifying the documents after the fact. Is that accurate? What are the odds the same people doing the classifications are also in the crosshairs?
Are there precedents for this sort of political case? Comey didn’t just leak documents. He subverted the highest levels of our legal system for political ends. Do the prosecutors factor in multiple appeals and how high will those go? Seems to this non-lawyer (and I do recognize & respect your professional expertise)that our judiciary has shown 1) it is willing to blur lines between civil, criminal, and constitutional and 2) cannot be counted on to ignore political exigencies.
Even as an average person, it is nearly impossible to write or think about this in clear-cut “broke the law=is prosecutable” terms without convolution and $3 words.
If we’ve learned anything about the Swamp/Deep State/media (redundant)it is that they are masters at twisting and distorting what should be simple conclusions. Since they want this all to go away now, before the election, OR to be delayed until afterward,it’s clear they’ll spin every single action by the Administration. This is going to be a mess and the progs can exploit that.
Will the FISA case move this case onto more solid ground for the prosecution? Less ambiguous evidence;more non-deniable connections;clearer-cut proof of sedition??
Or should we all just accept that the rot and corruption that puts the institutions on a higher plane with insurmountable bars to indictment/prosecution is the reality and ignore it all? There are already a lot on our side who have disengaged with extreme prejudice against the entire system.
No precedent. And that carries a certain problem. The conduct of the government against Trump is so far beyond the pale, is such an egregious abuse of power, that it's entirely possible Congress never thought it would be done, and never passed a law making it illegal.
I no longer give the DOJ or FBI the benefit of the doubt. In my mind, they are presumed dishonest. The presumption can be overcome with evidence.
That we live under a multi-tier legal system, where the privileged people get preferential treatment in court, should be taken as axiomatic truth. I assume Comey gets breaks that others would not, and this for political either favors or optics (don't pile on the enemy) reasons. I don;t expect the legal system to be fair or honest - read too many cases to remain naive.
The legal principle for prosecutors' charge/decline decisions is spelled out in ethical "rules of professional conduct." The languages is all high-falutin', but elastic to the point of being meaningless as a practical matter.
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3.8(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; ...
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule. ....
Some jurisdictions have a higher bar for charging, which arises as a practical matter otherwise the courts would be flooded with cases. One higher bar is that the prosecutor must believe he can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The DC jurisdiction uses this high-falutin' rhetoric:
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall not:(a) In exercising discretion to investigate or to prosecute, improperly favor or invidiously discriminate against any person;
(b) File in court or maintain a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(c) Prosecute to trial a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of guilt;
All that said, legal ethics is an oxymoron. All sides including the judge are on friendly basis, and they all protect each other in case of most wrong-doing. The exception to this is when enough of the public becomes aware that a particular person "in the system" is a snake, the system has to act to protect the impression that the system has integrity. Do not mistake the impression of integrity with actual integrity.
Not to say that all of them are crooks. Just that it is naive to think people who thrive in a system based on adversarial process are themselves clean. The vast majority of people in the legal profession are cold and calculating; in it for personal gain. Politicians are this on steroids.
Law is a bit like math. It is formulaic. Add up a few elements, and you get a crime. If one of the elements is missing, it isn't a crime.
You will never find the press giving the formula, nor discussing the elements (the fact allegations). The "is / is not" debate is always at the top level, conclusory terms, using examples that just don't fit.
The press wants the public to be in this agitated, uninformed condition. Too bad most people fall into the trap.
It takes substantial effort to research the law and facts and apply the formula; but that is the only way to arrive at an informed opinion.
Well and succinctly put. With the current unwillingness to indict any of the principal coup plotters based upon the excuse of the week and running out the calendar, there will never be justice within the system and President Trump will never gain full control over the deep state. Where are the declassified FISA documents, for instance? He has repeatedly ordered their release and now delegated the authority to the DOJ. I wait and wait for a major indictment and don't expect to see one.
It’s Kenny! You bastards!!
They will get him on lack of candor however showed no intent.
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.