Comey Indicted

#76
#76
GAVol said:
The answer is pretty obvious. More than all the Flynn stuff and Russia-gate though, Comey has always played the role of Washington lawyer to an T. Heck, he even did it to Hillary when he handed Democrats the outcome they wanted in her email investigation… then covered his ass by calling her out a week before the election.

In technical terms - dude is just greasy.
Click to expand...
Not obvious to me. If there was enough cause to investigate in either case, then Comey and the FBI had an obligation to investigate regardless of political consequences.
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, in an earlier post you discussed replacing subjective motivations for objective probable cause.

Putting the prosecutor in charge of determining whether a case will be proven BRD does exactly that.

For example, take a self defense case. The defendants actions are judged in light of whether or not his actions were reasonable. Do we really want prosecutors, not jurors, making that determination?

Obscenity charges are an another example. They are based on community standards. If one prosecutor views those standards one way, and another views them otherwise, whose view prevails? L

Additionally, often times evidence develops after indictment that affects the judgment of the prosecutor. For example, co-defendants flip and provide recordings or texts that previously unknown.

Prosecutors should never charge cases where they believe someone is innocent, but they shouldn’t be prohibited from charging cases where there is probable cause, but the individual prosecutor himself is not sure the evidence meets the threshold of BRD. Again, that is for a jury to determine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Peradox1K and StarRaider
#79
#79
OHvol40 said:
Congress lies to Congress constantly lol. Can we arrest all of them and just start new? America would be better off…
Click to expand...

😆 at least try. There is a HUGR difference between a Congressman stating a wrong political fact or lying about it versus a member of the law enforcement bringing knowingly false information to prosecute someone. Thank about it like your local police force falsifying documents to take to court and charge you on.
 
#80
#80
volbound1700 said:
😆 at least try. There is a HUGR difference between a Congressman stating a wrong political fact or lying about it versus a member of the law enforcement bringing knowingly false information to prosecute someone. Thank about it like your local police force falsifying documents to take to court and charge you on.
Click to expand...
It was tongue-in-cheek brother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#81
#81
BeardedVol said:
That's what's awesome about this, the Constitution says nothing about the president having 'absolute immunity'.

It the 'judicial activism' that you all like to rail about when it's convenient to do so.

Just like 'fiscal conservatism', you all have burned 'originalism' on the alter of Trump as well.
Click to expand...

You are correct, Immunity exists but it only applies to Presidential actions and not items a President does in their personal life or role outside of being President.
 
#83
#83
Ritzwatch said:
Respectfully, in an earlier post you discussed replacing subjective motivations for objective probable cause.

Putting the prosecutor in charge of determining whether a case will be proven BRD does exactly that.

For example, take a self defense case. The defendants actions are judged in light of whether or not his actions were reasonable. Do we really want prosecutors, not jurors, making that determination?

Obscenity charges are an another example. They are based on community standards. If one prosecutor views those standards one way, and another views them otherwise, whose view prevails? L

Additionally, often times evidence develops after indictment that affects the judgment of the prosecutor. For example, co-defendants flip and provide recordings or texts that previously unknown.

Prosecutors should never charge cases where they believe someone is innocent, but they shouldn’t be prohibited from charging cases where there is probable cause, but the individual prosecutor himself is not sure the evidence meets the threshold of BRD. Again, that is for a jury to determine.
Click to expand...


Prosecutors do not proceed with cases where they do not earnestly believe they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats why they routinely drop many criminal cases.
 
#84
#84
lawgator1 said:
Prosecutors do not proceed with cases where they do not earnestly believe they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats why they routinely drop many criminal cases.
Click to expand...

Comey cuts a deal and pleads to a misdemeanor then squeals like a pig.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#85
#85
SpaceCoastVol said:
Here we go
www.foxnews.com

Comey indicted for alleged false statements, obstruction of congressional proceeding

Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted on alleged false statement and obstruction of justice charges.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
abcnews.go.com

Former FBI Director James Comey indicted days after Trump demanded his DOJ move 'now' to prosecute enemies

Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted just days after President Trump issued a public demand for the DOJ to act "now" to prosecute him, sources say.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
Indeed, here we go.
 
#90
#90
OrangeTsar said:
I don’t understand?
Click to expand...
I mean, you said that the debate clause protects congresspeople from being prosecuted based on what's said in Congress, right?
Oh snap, I used the wrong word. I meant based on circumstance. I apologize, I'll fix that real quick.
 
#94
#94
Boston Vol said:
Still waiting for James Clapper to face the music.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'd trade all these Trump-related lawfare cases to instead focus on prosecuting the people who just about destroyed this country over the last five years, like the mass murderer Fauci and the influence peddling Biden family and their cohorts.

As much as I'd love to see the likes of Comey, Clapper, and Brennan locked up, they are small fish, just lackies. It is Obama and Clinton that were the head of the snake of this whole filthy operation, and although I understand that nothing will ever touch them, those are the scum that deserve a reckoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, norrislakevol, whodeycin85 and 3 others
#95
#95
lawgator1 said:
The public trail that this is political is undeniable. I mean, the ASA who had the case -- a Trump supporter - quit saying that he would not be complicit in this.

Trump responded by saying he fired the guy because he would not indict Comey, then Trump installed a political operative who got the indictment in days.

US attorneys represent the US, not Trump. That Trump by his own words put someone in there just to retaliate against Comey is a huge problem. Or should be for anyone with an ounce of integrity.

This is going to get really ugly really fast. And the Supreme Court's credibility will be on the line shortly.
Click to expand...
What's the proof that this is political? Serious question.

If Trump pressed the indictment because he/they know he's guilty, does that make it political?

This horse **** where politicians and deep state do whatever the hell they want and then skate because we don't indict politicians has to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, StarRaider, Peradox1K and 2 others
#96
#96
FLVOL_79 said:
How is lying to congress illegal when they all lie to us?
Click to expand...

To be honest, the media articles telling you Congress is lying is often lying to you even more than Congress 😄.

The media so full of it and keep in mind that most of your information comes from you. As an innocent example, look at CFB media. You got AP pollsters ranking Florida higher after they lose to USF, bogus and bias Heisman races, idiotic takes on teams to the point where Youtubers sound more informed now, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85, sami and Peradox1K
#100
#100
lawgator1 said:
Prosecutors do not proceed with cases where they do not earnestly believe they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats why they routinely drop many criminal cases.
Click to expand...
The discussion is about the charging decision (the indictment process.)

In evaluating a case, prosecutors will indict where they believe there will be sufficient evidence of a crime that a jury could convict. They will often balance that evidence with such concerns as societal interests, other political entities that may be pursuing charges, etc., “Earnestness” of a belief of conviction gets into the very subjective analysis we want them to avoid.

They don’t even need the evidence to be accessible to them at the time they charge, as long as they have a reasonable belief it will be available at trial.

Certainly, a prudent prosecutor will continually evaluate their case and if they don’t believe there is evidence to convict, they will dismiss a case. There are lots of reasons for that, some of which that have nothing to do with actual quality and quantity of evidence.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top