Anonymous wrote:
^ My point is, if Trump can do this to Comey, who was actually a net positive in his life, he can do it to anyone, including YOU.
And you won't find it "due process" when he comes after YOU.
.Anonymous wrote:The Comey statements currently investigated are past the statute of limitations.
The indictment relies on a more recent hearing, where a senator relayed those past Comey comments and in so doing, slightly misinterpreted them and also conflated them with something else. Comey said that he stood by his original statements. But the original statements are too old, and the senator misquoted them to him at that time.
So it's going to be VERY DIFFICULT, if impossible, for the prosecution to prove that Comey lied.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.
What does that matter?
It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.
For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.
USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.
What does that matter?
It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.
For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.
USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.
Sources please on the line prosecutors.
And, did you feel the same way about all the cases against Trump?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.
What does that matter?
It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.
For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.
USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.
Sources please on the line prosecutors.
And, did you feel the same way about all the cases against Trump?
Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.
What does that matter?
It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.
For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.
USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.
Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He lied to Congress PP
Allegedly. How communist of you to think that just because a prosecutor say you committed a crime, you are deemed guilty until you prove prosecution wrong
Bondi clearly lied to Congress. She said she wouldn't work for the president, or do his bidding. It's the easiest case of perjury out there. A kindergartner could try the case and win.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He lied to Congress PP
Allegedly. How communist of you to think that just because a prosecutor say you committed a crime, you are deemed guilty until you prove prosecution wrong
Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.
Anonymous wrote:He lied to Congress PP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He lied to Congress PP
DP, you didn’t really answer. That said, one person giving an answer that doesn’t support another’s theory isn’t considered lying. Is this the reason that he should be in jail though? Again, I’m seriously trying to understand.