AG nominee Pam Bondi has said that the bad prosecutors at the DOJ will be prosecuted

[struth]

Being prosecuted means they have convincing evidence of a crime that they believe they are likely to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

You said they'll be prosecuted, but you don't know what they did to warrant prosecution.

Yes that’s what it means. Doesn’t mean they are guilty

Of course I do, I provide yoj the code section I believe they violated with their political prosecution

 

[struth]

Investigating and prosecuting someone is not illegal, even if you disagree with the legal foundation of that prosecution.

You guys are very confused and very poorly informed. You just believe the shit they tell you to believe.

That’s not entirely true

A prosecutor can’t violate someone’s rights, under the color of law.

These political prosecutions are defacto illegal

 

[Marener]

Of course I do, I provide yoj the code section I believe they violated with their political prosecution

And how did they violate that code? Specifically. Because you have to be VERY specific before a jury.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Pam Bondi also knows that the vast majority of the right wing base are morons who believe the nonsense on TV. If she can get the morons to support her loudly and proudly, it's harder for hesitant Senators to vote against her.

All of Bondi's targets will be pardoned before Biden leaves office.

 

[Curried Goats]

Your own link says otherwise! Your own link says Durbam stated the fbi behavior harmed the reputation of the fbi

Why don't you quote that part then? Also it's reputation being harmed by one bad acting agent isn't evidence of the FBI acting against Trump's rights. His investigation found the opposite, Dipshit.

 

[WEATHER53]

Jack Smiths inane and insane zealotry makes him #1. If not every ass wipe zealot will be persecuting prosecuting during the Presidency

 

[struth]

Why don't you quote that part then? Also it's reputation being harmed by one bad acting agent isn't evidence of the FBI acting against Trump's rights. His investigation found the opposite, Dipshit.

Durham didn’t conclude it was one agent that harmed the entire fbi

 

[struth]

And how did they violate that code? Specifically. Because you have to be VERY specific before a jury.

I’m not trying a case before the jury silly

Haha how silly

 

[Curried Goats]

Durham didn’t conclude it was one agent that harmed the entire fbi

Why don't you quote his conclusion like I did then, Fucktard? What he concluded was the FBI was not illegally targeting Trump. There there.

 

[WEATHER53]

Trump will avenge and not revenge
Exactly what is best for America

 

[d0gbreath]

Talk is still affordable, I see.

 

[Marener]

I’m not trying a case before the jury silly

Haha how silly

Precisely. You're just a random internet poster with no idea what you're talking about.

If you were a prosecutor, you'd never bring a case to a jury.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump will be allowed to only that which is legal.

 

[struth]

Precisely. You're just a random internet poster with no idea what you're talking about.

If you were a prosecutor, you'd never bring a case to a jury.

Well, i wouldn't right now, I would open an investigation first....silly.

 

[struth]

Why don't you quote his conclusion like I did then, Fucktard? What he concluded was the FBI was not illegally targeting Trump. There there.

It's weird you don't even read your own links...
Durham said that the failure of the FBI "to critically analyze information that ran counter to the narrative of a Trump/Russia collusive relationship throughout Crossfire Hurricane is extremely troublesome" and caused "severe reputational harm" to the bureau.

What is also weird is that you went to a wiki page about the report, instead of the report itself.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

Conclusion Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report. As noted, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance order. In other instances, FBI personnel working on that same FISA application displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude towards accuracy and completeness. FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging - both then and in hindsight - that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence 17 activities on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly helping another person in such activities.43 And certain personnel disregarded significant exculpatory information that should have prompted investigative restraint and re-examination.44 Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents. The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director ofthe FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence. 45 In light of the foregoing, there is a continuing need for the FBI and the Department to recognize that lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias, and an over-willingness to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents caused investigators to fail to adequately consider alternative hypotheses and to act without appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power. Although recognizing that in hindsight much is clearer, much of this also seems to have been clear at the time. We therefore believe it is important to examine past conduct to identify shortcomings and improve how the government carries out its most sensitive functions. Section V discusses some of these issues more fully.

 

[DonGlock26]

Prosecutors don’t get prosecuted for being “bad” prosecutors. And Pam Bondi knows that.

Assuming she is speaking with informality, then I have no issue with firing them. There’s a necessary level of due process involved in determining if their level of being “bad” is a fireable offense, though.

How about corrupt prosecutors?

 

[Curried Goats]

It's weird you don't even read your own links...
Durham said that the failure of the FBI "to critically analyze information that ran counter to the narrative of a Trump/Russia collusive relationship throughout Crossfire Hurricane is extremely troublesome" and caused "severe reputational harm" to the bureau.

What is also weird is that you went to a wiki page about the report, instead of the report itself.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

Conclusion Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report. As noted, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance order. In other instances, FBI personnel working on that same FISA application displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude towards accuracy and completeness. FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging - both then and in hindsight - that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence 17 activities on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly helping another person in such activities.43 And certain personnel disregarded significant exculpatory information that should have prompted investigative restraint and re-examination.44 Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents. The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director ofthe FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence. 45 In light of the foregoing, there is a continuing need for the FBI and the Department to recognize that lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias, and an over-willingness to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents caused investigators to fail to adequately consider alternative hypotheses and to act without appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power. Although recognizing that in hindsight much is clearer, much of this also seems to have been clear at the time. We therefore believe it is important to examine past conduct to identify shortcomings and improve how the government carries out its most sensitive functions. Section V discusses some of these issues more fully.

And yet he couldn't charge anyone except one person who lied to the FBI as well. Him crying about how the FBI went about their business isn't the same as finding any criminality on their part.

 

[kyzr]

What exactly are you trying to achieve? It seems like your goal is to make it impossible to investigate and prosecute anyone in government.

1. The object is to prevent future Lawfare actions by partisan DAs

2. There is a difference between legitimate investigations and prosecutions on trumped up charges.

3. Please recall that Bragg transformed an expired misdemeanor into a felony because he said it violated Federal campaign law. Yet the head of the FEC said it did not violate Federal campaign law, but the judge would not let him testify to that in court, a Kangaroo Court by any other name.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What is her criteria for a “bad prosecutor”?

Someone who holds Republicans accountable for their crimes?

Nope. People who abuse the established court system and take the blindfold off of lady Liberty

Bragg running for election with the campaign promise to get Trump should have nullified his actions before they were made

Just imagine if some prosecutor came out with charges based on victimless “crimes” and unprecedented jumps in connecting dots and procedures… and got all prominent Democrat presidential candidates indicted using their position…

I bet you’d suddenly change your tune.

Prosecutors and judges can condemn a ham sandwich if they really want to connect point A to point Z. We see judicial misconduct and wrongful imprisonments all the time in this country.. and that’s just the ones we know about

 

[struth]

And yet he couldn't charge anyone except one person who lied to the FBI as well. Him crying about how the FBI went about their business isn't the same as finding any criminality on their part.

Not sure your point? Just because the FBI was acting corruptly doesn't mean they were all committing crimes.