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

[tahuyaman]

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.

The existence of credible evidence of criminal conduct is vague and not a good standard? If that was the case, there would never be any criminal trials.

A criminal trial is conducted to examine and test that evidence presented by the prosecution. I can see why you have such a problem with that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

But an even better chance of saying that supposed career seasoned prosecutor was part of the weaponization of the doj against trump and republicans and trying to stall comey's indictment is just another part of that process.

But even taking best case scenario: a completely unbiased, seasoned career prosecutor advises the US attorney that
this is not a good case. That does not excuse that prosecutor from following the directions of his or her boss.

Making your boss do your job for you has always been a sure way of getting canned.

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.

I'm not missing that at all.That's why I asked the question. i'll ask again and use your own words: Where is this rule that if a president directly influences the decision to prosecute, then the person can never be prosecuted?

The statute of limitations on Comey's crime was about to run out. As chief executive Trump made sure that a subordinate leader in the executive branch, it did not inadvertently allow a criminal to go free on a technicality.

But keep in mind, we don't know that comey is guilty. that will be for the jury to decide.

If Comey, is innocent.He has nothing to worry about@

 

[rightwinger]

It’s speculation that the leak from McCabe is the only thing they have.

Easy to prove

 

[Marener]

The existence of credible evidence of criminal conduct is vague and not a good standard? If that was the case, there would never be any criminal trials.

A criminal trial is conducted to examine and test that evidence presented by the prosecution. I can see why you have such a problem with that.

The DoJ already has a standard. They bring charges when they have a more likely than not chance to get a conviction.

If they did it your way, the system would be flooded with cases that don’t stand a chance.

 

[AntonToo]

A liberal grand jury indicted him on two charges, Anthonie.
His and your own ilk did this, not a bunch of conservatives.
There lies the difference between your BS and reality.

Liberal grand jury? What made them liberal, aside from your fantasies?

All Grand Jury indictment establishes is a probable cause, not the conviction standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It is DOJ's policy to ONLY bring indictments where the prosecutor believes they have the goods for a conviction, not just barely enough to squeak past Grand Jury's much lower standard.

Trump had to fire his own appointed US Attorney and put in place his personal lawyer, who for the first time in her life has submitted an indictment. It is signed by that loyalist and no one else, which is very rare.

So when you try to say that this is somehow done by someone else you are plainly full of shit. It was done by, and for Trump, against all advice of career prosecutors who will not touch this garbage with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Marener]

But an even better chance of saying that supposed career seasoned prosecutor was part of the weaponization of the doj against trump and republicans and trying to stall comey's indictment is just another part of that process.

But even taking best case scenario: a completely unbiased, seasoned career prosecutor advises the US attorney that
this is not a good case. That does not excuse that prosecutor from following the directions of his or her boss.

Making your boss do your job for you has always been a sure way of getting canned.

I'm not missing that at all.That's why I asked the question. i'll ask again and use your own words: Where is this rule that if a president directly influences the decision to prosecute, then the person can never be prosecuted?

The statute of limitations on Comey's crime was about to run out. As chief executive Trump made sure that a subordinate leader in the executive branch, it did not inadvertently allow a criminal to go free on a technicality.

But keep in mind, we don't know that comey is guilty. that will be for the jury to decide.

If Comey, is innocent.He has nothing to worry about@

Comey was already thoroughly investigated and no charges were brought. There really isn’t any reason why this case is being revisited at all except out of malice.

The idea that Trump is pushing for the prosecution out of a dispassionate desire to see the law applied equally to all is just too silly to take seriously.

As Trump told Bondi, they had to prosecute his enemies to preserve his credibility and reputation.

 

[Meister]

Liberal grand jury? What made them liberal, aside from your fantasies?

All Grand Jury indictment establishes is a probable cause, not the conviction standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It is DOJ's policy to ONLY bring indictments where the prosecutor believes they have the goods for a conviction, not just barely enough to squeak past Grand Jury's much lower standard.

Trump had to fire his own appointed US Attorney and put in place his personal lawyer, who for the first time in her life has submitted an indictment. It is signed by that loyalist and no one else, which is very rare.

So when you try to say that this is somehow done by someone else you are plainly full of shit. It was done by, and for Trump, against all advice of career prosecutors who will not touch this garbage with a 10 foot pole.

"All Grand Jury indictment establishes is a probable cause....."
Thank you

 

[tahuyaman]

Easy to prove

That’s what a trial is for. Examine and test the evidence.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Comey was already thoroughly investigated and no charges were brought. There really isn’t any reason why this case is being revisited at all except out of malice.

The idea that Trump is pushing for the prosecution out of a dispassionate desire to see the law applied equally to all is just too silly to take seriously.

As Trump told Bondi, they had to prosecute his enemies to preserve his credibility and reputation.

How does any of that rant answer my question?

 

[Marener]

How does any of that rant answer my question?

Your desire to make this seems normal overrides all rationality.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your desire to make this seems normal overrides all rationality.

I never said this was normal.

The way the weaponized DOJ/FBI went after Trump was anything but normal. they appeared to be literally psychotic at times.

So why would we expect Trump giving it back to them to be normal?

Any luck finding that rule you were talking about? How if the president ever talks about prosecuting someone they can never be prosecuted?

 

[Marener]

I never said this was normal.

The way the weaponized DOJ/FBI went after Trump was anything but normal. they appeared to be literally psychotic at times.

So why would we expect Trump giving it back to them to be normal?

Any luck finding that rule you were talking about? How if the president ever talks about prosecuting someone they can never be prosecuted?

Well, at least you can admit that Trump is weaponizing the DoJ against his political enemies.

Malicious prosecution is a legal concept with basis in case law. A president with known persona animus against a person, forcing the DoJ to prosecute that person out of that animus really does lend itself to fitting the necessary legal criteria.

It's a great country, where you can't be criminally charged just because the president doesn't like you. The courts recognize that.

 

[Meister]

It's a great country, where you can't be criminally charged just because the president doesn't like you. The courts recognize that.

WoW!! That's exactly what the prior administration did with Trump.
Tried to knock out a political opponent.
Incredible, that you didn't connect those dots.

 

[Marener]

WoW!! That's exactly what the prior administration did with Trump.
Tried to knock out a political opponent.
Incredible, that you didn't connect those dots.

Your allegation is baseless.

 

[Meister]

Your allegation is baseless.

Not baseless at all, marener. That is a fact.
No matter how much you want to deny it.

 

[Marener]

Not baseless at all, marener. That is a fact.
No matter how much you want to deny it.

Prove it.

 

[AntonToo]

"All Grand Jury indictment establishes is a probable cause....."
Thank you

You are very welcome bullshit peddler.

 

[Meister]

You are very welcome bullshit peddler.

I accept your surrender.
Have a great day AntonToo

 

[AntonToo]

I never said this was normal.

The way the weaponized DOJ/FBI went after Trump was anything but normal. they appeared to be literally psychotic at times.

So why would we expect Trump giving it back to them to be normal?

Any luck finding that rule you were talking about? How if the president ever talks about prosecuting someone they can never be prosecuted?

Good job admitting that Trump's claims that he will somehow "fix weaponization of DOJ" were just lies.

He is weaponizing it like never before and you coolaid chugging degenerates are all good with that.

 

[AntonToo]

I accept your surrender.
Have a great day AntonToo

You can't address anything I say, can't defend any of your bullshit...then claim a victory.

How pathetic.