Fox News legal expert sees “no viable case” against James Comey

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, because of Hillary, Trump won.
Her arrogance got in the way of her victory.

That, and she's just a *****.

And Trump's amazing incompetence and overall douchebaggery is why he lost the House, the Senate, and the White House.

Which he will do again.

 

[tahuyaman]

Again the standards for prosecution are that the charges are likely to result in a conviction.

That seems rational. Why get rid of that standard?

A case should be perused whenever there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct. A jury trial reviwes that evidence then determines an outcome.


That’s the standard.

 

[Nostra]

And Trump's amazing incompetence and overall douchebaggery is why he lost the House, the Senate, and the White House.

Which he will do again.

You think Trump will lose his next run for President?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A case should be perused whenever there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct.

It was, and prosecutors refused to bring a case.

Pay attention!

 

[tahuyaman]

It was, and prosecutors refused to bring a case.

Pay attention!

You’re referring to a specific case. Pay attention.

I said that prosecutors should bring a case against anyone where there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct.

 

[Meister]

You think Trump will lose his next run for President?

I do believe Fort Funny really does believe Trump will lose in 2028.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You’re referring to a different case. Pay attention.

Im referring to the topic of the thread.

Arr you off-topic? Not my problem, you realize.

 

[Marener]

A case should be perused whenever there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct. A jury trial reviwes that evidence then determines an outcome.

That’s the standard.

No, that’s not the standard. You have to consider the case in its totality, which means you don’t just focus on whatever evidence you think shows criminal conduct but also anticipating how other evidence will affect it.

A grand jury requires a bare majority with the standard of probable cause and does not have to see any exculpatory evidence.

Getting the case past a grand jury is far too low of a bar to assume that’s sufficient reason to pursue charges.

The previous prosecutor did not think the evidence would support a conviction.

 

[Billiejeens]

Add more context.

When a career seasoned prosecutor says this case shouldn’t be prosecuted, and then promptly gets fired and replaced with someone who rushes it through a grand jury, the you probably have a good chance at saying it’s malicious.

See, the thing you’re missing is that Trump was directly influencing the decision to go after Comey. You don’t have that in other situations.

or -

This career seasoned prosecutor says that this case shouldn't be prosecuted because of the prosector's political bias and stalled until the statute of limitations was about to run out..

The fact that the new prosecutor was able to secure a grand jury indictment so quickly (remember you ***** love Grand Juries and believe them to be sacrosanct) tells how obvious the crimes are

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I do believe Fort Funny really does believe Trump will lose in 2028.

He will lose the white house for his party.

I did not think I would have to spell that out for a functioning adult.

But here we are. I need to constantly remind myself I am posting on the halfiwit white wing armpit of the internet.

 

[tahuyaman]

No, that’s not the standard. You have to consider the case in its totality, which means you don’t just focus on whatever evidence you think shows criminal conduct but also anticipating how other evidence will affect it.

A grand jury requires a bare majority with the standard of probable cause and does not have to see any exculpatory evidence.

Getting the case past a grand jury is far too low of a bar to assume that’s sufficient reason to pursue charges.

The previous prosecutor did not think the evidence would support a conviction.

So you are saying that when there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct, prosecutors should not pursue a case?

I’m not referring to any specific case.

 

[Marener]

So you are saying that when there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct, prosecutors should not persue a case?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the totality of the evidence.

 

[Lesh]

Do you think all the evidence has been made public knowledge?

Once the evidence is examined, that will determine the outcome.

So stop telling us about how strong the evidence is when you admit you have no idea

 

[tahuyaman]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the totality of the evidence.

No. If there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct, a case should be brought.

The level of that criminality goes to the degree of punishment which should be imposed in the event of a guilty verdict.

 

[Billiejeens]

Fishing expeditions to punish former employees because you are mad at them is "holding them accountable." Its vengeance. The irony is that without Comey, Trump would never have won.

There are two (2) things that a leftist can say that removes any doubt that they are full blown retards

(1) any association between Russia and Trump

(2) that Comey adversely affected Hilliary Clinton

Either of those positions removes the leftist from rationality.

 

[Marener]

This career seasoned prosecutor says that this case shouldn't be prosecuted because of the prosector's political bias and stalled until the statute of limitations was about to run out..

There’s never been any indication he has any political bias before.

The fact that the new prosecutor was able to secure a grand jury indictment so quickly (remember you ***** love Grand Juries and believe them to be sacrosanct) tells how obvious the crimes are

No, that’s not at all the obvious. Grand juries hear no exculpatory evidence, have no defense presentations, require only a majority instead of being unanimous and require only probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

And they still only accepted 2 out of 3 charges.

 

[tahuyaman]

So stop telling us about how strong the evidence is when you admit you have no idea

You are completely missing the point. I am not referring to any specific case. I’m talking about prosecutions in general. Prosecutions should be brought any time there is credible evidence of criminal conduct.

 

[Billiejeens]

There’s never been any indication he has any political bias before.



No, that’s not at all the obvious. Grand juries hear no exculpatory evidence, have no defense presentations, require only a majority instead of being unanimous and require only probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

And they still only accepted 2 out of 3 charges.

You are just a piece of shit -
Not that it's any surprise.

 

[Marener]

No. If there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct, a case should be brought.

The level of that criminality goes to the degree of punishment which should be imposed in the event of a guilty verdict.

That’s not a good standard. It’s too vague and basically meaningless.

You can’t think of a prosecution without considering no exculpatory evidence. You can’t think about a prosecution without thinking of the standard you have to meet to secure a conviction.

 

[Marener]

You are just a piece of shit -
Not that it's any surprise.

That’s what I get for treating you like a rational adult.