Don 't go Drumpf on her, she'll put you on ignore. (I say "she", because she's Ann Coulter irl.)
Section 793 subsection f
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Yes, you seemed confused about it, based on you rcomments. But you are confused about so many things....
are you being cute and using "precedence" instead of precedent on purpose?
you specifically spoke of precedence... but if you are attempting to use the legal term precedent... you not getting the lack of importance of precedent in the decision to prosecute.
1. we are using statutes here not common law. Precedent is irrelevant at this stage.
2. Besides every criminal law prosecution per a statute would be a precedent for prosecution.
here are the facts... showing some of her criminal violations of statute...
"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."
Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."
see much more at the link below...
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james...rue-statements-fbi-comey-225216#ixzz4DjtxqxU3
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
you specifically spoke of precedence... but if you are attempting to use the legal term precedent... you not getting the lack of importance of precedent in the decision to prosecute.
1. we are using statutes here not common law. Precedent is irrelevant at this stage.
2. Besides every criminal law prosecution per a statute would be a precedent for prosecution.
here are the facts... showing some of her criminal violations of statute...
"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."
Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."
see much more at the link below...
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james...rue-statements-fbi-comey-225216#ixzz4DjtxqxU3
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Last edited:
Comey pled Hillary "not innocent" in the court of public opinion. The voters will be made very, very tired of this story and will want to move on. Eventually they will exercise their "anti boring stories" nature by voting for Hillary.
"Precedent" in the legal sense. Yes. It may be irrelevant, but see the last paragraph. As you would agree, I'm sure, it is prior, similar investigations and findings that informed the present decision not to prosecute, if we are to believe FBI director Comey. This is not the use of precedent in the sense of stare decisis. I agree.
The FBI, judging from Comey's remarks, in the present case, apparently made their decision not to recommend prosecution on the basis of precedent set by their decision not to recommend prosecution in quite similar prior cases.
As a lawyer you were taught that interpretation of statutes, which may often leave room for more than one interpretation, depends heavily on the legal principle of stare decisis. We have no way to know from the information we are given whether, in the present case, the FBI may also have been informed by ill fated prior cases where prosecution was ultimately unsuccessful. And such prior cases would have been part of the body of legal precedent that the legal principle of stare decisis is based on.
Last edited:
Everyone in the justice system knows that when the Federal Govt goes after you they have a very high "winning" percentage. Nobody at the FBI was worried about previous losing precedents. The Feds probably have a 90% win percentage or higher when they prosecute and go to trial... I would bet when you include plea bargains is probably higher.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808
The fbi and justice department should be worried about the banana republic precedent being set. Or the you can be negligent with classified info and walk precedent.
on the other hand...
I would agree that Comey like Roberts could have been very concerned about political ramifications.
Or personal career ramifications or reputation ramifications... which would have arose had the media unleashed their attack dogs on him. He might have gotten the Ken Starr treatment for a decade or two. Only this time instead since the republican establishment and dems have joined teams... so there would be no cushy republican establishment jobs for him in malibu.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808
The fbi and justice department should be worried about the banana republic precedent being set. Or the you can be negligent with classified info and walk precedent.
on the other hand...
I would agree that Comey like Roberts could have been very concerned about political ramifications.
Or personal career ramifications or reputation ramifications... which would have arose had the media unleashed their attack dogs on him. He might have gotten the Ken Starr treatment for a decade or two. Only this time instead since the republican establishment and dems have joined teams... so there would be no cushy republican establishment jobs for him in malibu.
Last edited:
Of course i don't know but I can read and I know history.
lets play a game.
high profile prosecutions lost by the the FBI and Justice Dept since the De Lorean case in 1984. For 1000 dollars... alex.
Now given google's power you should find a big list of failed prosecutions which set this scary precedent you were imagining right ?
so lets see the list...
_
P.S.
Well I googled it myself. I saw some articles and no high profile loses. Even the "winners" like the steve cohen still seem to lose...
let me say we should be disgusted that only one banker went to jail for the wall street mortgage crisis..
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html?_r=0
So its no surprise that since the banksters own the system their crony speech giver in chief... skated on this.
lets play a game.
high profile prosecutions lost by the the FBI and Justice Dept since the De Lorean case in 1984. For 1000 dollars... alex.
Now given google's power you should find a big list of failed prosecutions which set this scary precedent you were imagining right ?
so lets see the list...
_
P.S.
Well I googled it myself. I saw some articles and no high profile loses. Even the "winners" like the steve cohen still seem to lose...
let me say we should be disgusted that only one banker went to jail for the wall street mortgage crisis..
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html?_r=0
So its no surprise that since the banksters own the system their crony speech giver in chief... skated on this.
Last edited:
you seem to be advocating for a very strict construction of precedent set by previous cases there Antonin.
I thought the law was supposed to live and breathe... Barry.
I thought the law was supposed to live and breathe... Barry.