That’s a colorful version of his statement.
Here’s his actual words:
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
Fact the DOJ is not controled by the house or the senate or even the president. They were not going to prosecute hillary. They believed and wanted her to be president. When they failed to get the person they wanted they went after the winner. Remember the DOJ spent over four years going after trump over and over again. Maybe they have him now and the democrats will get their revenge for their queen being defeated.
Yes. Compromised by a conscience and a consistent worldview.
I never said the DOJ was controlled by anyone. Fact. I said they were part of the executive and the AG appointed by POTUS. Also fact.
I have no idea who you’re referring to when you say “they failed to get the person they wanted and went after the winner.” Presumably, the winner is Trump. Who’s the “person they wanted”?
OK, let’s accept the premise that the DOJ headed by Barr was all in for the left. You still had full control of Congress which provides you the ability to open investigations and make referrals to the DOJ. Why didn’t they?
Guntsu
734
Cause they got nothing and getting you guys ginned up instead is far more effective and perhaps even fun.
kermode
736
Another person who can’t read, in this case the indictment.
It’s like an epidemic lately.
1 Like
. You have no idea how wrong you are. I live on an island which is part of nyc. Which trump won by more than 30 points
Like you have no idea
Oh and by the way Manhattan juries aren’t as liberal as you guys imagine. And i mean literally imagine.
2 Likes
posting an indictment before its an indictment is posting false information. It’s not an indictment until it is. Beyond that, its posting secret GJ materials which is not only illegal, but grounds for dismissal
This is the obvious answer. They need the grievance.
1 Like
Send back your law degree.
The conservative pundits you are getting this information from are failing you.
hammer and bleachbit?
he should have said
“We choose not to see those things here”
1 Like
Not gotten from any pundits. you should know better, And like the last guy I’ll say the same thing. Any person who doesn’t know that leaking GJ information is grounds for dismissal is a moron. You don’t need a pundit to know that. Posting an indictment before its an indictment is leaking GJ information. There’s nothing else it can be.
Good, perhaps you can offer an answer. When the GOP controlled the Executive and Legislative branches, why didn’t they investigate then?
Also, since you’re so concerned about it, why the silence from Trump’s staff doing the same thing after the whole Clinton debacle? You’re not a partisan, you only want to see justice carried out, so why isn’t there equal concern?
Your Honor,
Anyone who doesn’t know that you should rule for my client is a moron.
The defense rests.
because although they are tribal, they are not rabid. any prosecution of hillary would have been seen as political persecution, not prosecution. And the same arguments being made now about third world tin pots prosecuting their oposition would have been made.
Add to that one BIG thing. No DC jury would EVER have found her guilty. When Comey said “no reasonable prosecutor…” he had a point, just not for the reasons he gave
2 Likes
IF you are a lawyer, then you know that when the prosecution leaks GJ information it is grounds for dismissal. Do you deny this? If you do…
stick to real estate
1 Like
You’re proving my point. Bluster isn’t impressive on the internet. You have to show your work.
If this rule you believe exists is as definitive as you say, then show us the case law.
you do understand what grounds for dismissal means I assume.
whether or not the judge grants it is entirely different.
There is a valid legal argument to be made for dismissal based on the prosecution leaking GJ testimony in the not-yet-indictment. There is a reason why its SECRET
1 Like
