Comey Indicted

#105
#105
Ritzwatch said:
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.
Click to expand...


The test is whether they believe they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The first prosecutor, nominated by Trump, said no. The team said not even probable cause.

So Trump fired the prosecutor, accused him of being a traitor, and put in a puppet. An inexperienced, political hack.

The case is doomed.
 
#106
#106
sami said:
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.
Click to expand...
Obama and Clinton are not the head. They are tools used by the Soros, Rothschild, etc.
 
#107
#107
lawgator1 said:
The test is whether they believe they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The first prosecutor, nominated by Trump, said no. The team said not even probable cause.

So Trump fired the prosecutor, accused him of being a traitor, and put in a puppet. An inexperienced, political hack.

The case is doomed.
Click to expand...
It’s almost like you are not an independent anymore. You can’t help but root for the left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, W.TN.Orange Blood, Orange_Crush and 3 others
#110
#110
lawgator1 said:
The test is whether they believe they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The first prosecutor, nominated by Trump, said no. The team said not even probable cause.

So Trump fired the prosecutor, accused him of being a traitor, and put in a puppet. An inexperienced, political hack.

The case is doomed.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’re right. But how do you decide which political indictments to lap up and which to be skeptical of?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, norrislakevol, whodeycin85 and 1 other person
#111
#111
sami said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that's the end goal...if either have inside knowledge or proof that those above acted illegally I guarantee you they will roll over on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#114
#114
lawgator1 said:
I'm not interested in the whataboutism at the moment. What Trump is so obviously doing is shocking and deserving of condemnation
Click to expand...
This year it’s shock and condemnation. 8 years ago you were reaching for the popcorn. It’s blatantly obvious they’re all playing the same game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, GroverCleveland, NorthDallas40 and 5 others
#115
#115
GAVol said:
Maybe you’re right. But how do you decide which political indictments to lap up and which to be skeptical of?
Click to expand...
He may be right in his assumption that the case is doomed.

He is 100% incorrect in stating the “test” for a prosecutor’s decision to indict.

All that is legally required to charge is probable cause. Period. A prosecutor does not have to consider whether they feel like a jury will convict, only that there is sufficient evidence that a jury may convict.
 
#116
#116
GAVol said:
This year it’s shock and condemnation. 8 years ago you were reaching for the popcorn. It’s blatantly obvious they’re all playing the same game.
Click to expand...
I remember many political commentators, both on the left and right, warning of the fallout of lawfare.
 
#117
#117
Jxn Vol said:
Obama and Clinton are not the head. They are tools used by the Soros, Rothschild, etc.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, but there's a trail to Obama and Clinton while there could never be to the true "powers that be". My point is that to indict a grunt like Comey, while it is well deserved, is meaningless in the big picture. I'm only interested in seeing Obama, Clinton, Fauci, and Gates pay for their crimes against humanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#124
#124
hog88 said:
Keeping your independence huh?
Click to expand...
There isn't any real independence with ideology. Taking a stance against your chosen party is an entirely different matter. He's a liberal but dislikes the direction of the the Democrats. He takes a lot of hyperbolic crap in here that's perfectly justifiable. He never responds with similar petty insults towards those who are giving it to him. In that regard, he's a much better man than you or me
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top