'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[chancellor]

I just heard something I found hard to believe. Someone said Comey, the FBI guy, has stated that if Hillary is not indicted he will resign. If he said that, he might have screwed the pooch and given Hillary's lawyers a reason to have any indictment tossed out.

A person heading up an investigation, or in any position of authority or control, can have no personal bias or personal stake in the outcome of the investigation or of a subsequent prosecution. This is LEO 101. Saying he will quit if the case doesn't go the way he wants it to could be seen as tainting the entire investigation, including all evidence obtained.

Something isn't right here.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I saw that comment on Hot Air (very conservative site), but the claim is unsubstantiated.

How does that work if a reporter makes a claim like this, the investigator denies it, and the reporter won't give up the source? I'm assuming it's hearsay, and the investigator can testify...but I don't know.

[The Feral Slasher]

Allowed by whom? The FBI?

knowing what an indictment would do the election and our country, regardless if Hillary was found to be innocent, I just can't fathom that the Obama administration would allow any indictment to proceed.

[onejayhawk]

Allowed by whom? The FBI?

The AG.

J

[Lucky]

I could see that just as easily, or more likely meaning, me and my team have worked our asses off, and we believe we have incontrovertible evidence of wrong-doing. If, due to politics, Hillery is not indicted, I don't know what I am doing in this job and will quit. Not they way he wants it to go, so much as the way he thinks it should go.

No difference. The system requires that everyone row their own boat. Investigators, prosecutors, judges, appellate courts...everyone has their roles.

Besides, as well trained as law enforcement may be, they don't always have the best feel for when a case is airtight.

[TranaGreg]

No difference. The system requires that everyone row their own boat. Investigators, prosecutors, judges, appellate courts...everyone has their roles.

Besides, as well trained as law enforcement may be, they don't always have the best feel for when a case is airtight.

I understand where you're coming from ... there's a great plaque in one of the meeting rooms where I occasionally meet with Crown Attorneys that speaks to how the objective of the Crown is not a conviction, but rather to ensure that a just and fair process is adhered to. Noble sentiment, but I have to admit that not everyone I encounter lives up to that ideal.

[chancellor]

The AG.

J

She's too busy punishing bathroom transgressors so she can't be troubled with the trivialities of FBI findings, silly.

[Lucky]

I understand where you're coming from ... there's a great plaque in one of the meeting rooms where I occasionally meet with Crown Attorneys that speaks to how the objective of the Crown is not a conviction, but rather to ensure that a just and fair process is adhered to. Noble sentiment, but I have to admit that not everyone I encounter lives up to that ideal.

Great point. That's not only part of the prosecutor's code of ethics, but one of the rules of criminal procedure in many states. A prosecutor's job is not to seek convictions, but to make certain that justice is done. Sometimes, though, doing justice makes one very unpopular, especially when the politic thing is to prosecute someone just because everyone wants them to hang. Dismiss a botched case against a villain, and you hear the same thing...you've been bought off, the system is rigged, etc.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Great point. That's not only part of the prosecutor's code of ethics, but one of the rules of criminal procedure in many states. A prosecutor's job is not to seek convictions, but to make certain that justice is done. Sometimes, though, doing justice makes one very unpopular, especially when the politic thing is to prosecute someone just because everyone wants them to hang. Dismiss a botched case against a villain, and you hear the same thing...you've been bought off, the system is rigged, etc.

Is dismissing a botched case making sure Justice is done?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Brilliant John Oliver Bit...

The most telling sentence or statement in this whole (very funny) video is this:

It's surprising how many people are unaware how a Presidential Primary/Caucus system works.


Even I thought the people had more say in the selection of a nominee and I've been voting for 36 years. Can you imagine the those new to the process who's idea of Fair is--The People should have the ONLY voice in who becomes President and NOT the Party or Corporations or Super Pacs?

It's been a disappointing eye opener to say the least.

Maybe I hadn't been paying attention.

But I am now and so are millions of voters whom after this election, have a new goal.

Fix this shit....or like Oliver Suggests, maybe it will all be forgotten again.

[TranaGreg]

Fix this shit....or like Oliver Suggests, maybe it will all be forgotten again.

Or, as Oliver suggested, put it in your calendar for next Feb. 2 (not sure if that was in the clip but it was in the episode).

[Lucky]

Is dismissing a botched case making sure Justice is done?

Well, if it is something which can be fixed, you can send it back and have them work on it some more. But if the key evidence is compromised, and there is no way the State can prove its case without putting on tainted evidence, yes, dismissing the case is making sure Justice is done. Is there any doubt?

[Lucky]

The People should have the ONLY voice in who becomes President and NOT the Party or Corporations or Super Pacs?

I thought we had been over this. "The People" can put anyone on the ballot they want to. They can spend any amount electing him or her they want to. There were over 40 people on Presidential ballots in 2012. The GOP and the Democrats are private groups who put candidates on the ballots. They are the most successful at it. They don't have a right to stop you from putting someone on the ballot. You don't have a right to stop them. The Party is made up of people. Do you think they should not get to nominate someone?

[chancellor]

How does anyone of voting age not know how the names of the Presidential candidates in November get there? Does nobody take civics anymore? Does nobody have google?

Civics is still required in our school district, but the curriculum is appallingly weak, IMO.

Relative to involvement, looking at college participation, I get a feeling there are highly engaged and active political people, but a small percentage, and the overwhelming percentage just don't care.

[Lucky]

Civics is still required in our school district, but the curriculum is appallingly weak, IMO.

Relative to involvement, looking at college participation, I get a feeling there are highly engaged and active political people, but a small percentage, and the overwhelming percentage just don't care.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me, with particular reference to Bernie supporters, that getting all riled up, attending rallies, twittering, facebooking, and the like, without having a clue how the process works, is sort of like buying a block of tickets for the Angels games, driving out to the West Coast, painting your face, getting a Mike Trout tattoo, and settling into your seats behind home plate, without knowing the difference between baseball and croquet.

[TranaGreg]

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me, with particular reference to Bernie supporters, that getting all riled up, attending rallies, twittering, facebooking, and the like, without having a clue how the process works, is sort of like buying a block of tickets for the Angels games, driving out to the West Coast, painting your face, getting a Mike Trout tattoo, and settling into your seats behind home plate, without knowing the difference between baseball and croquet.

... and then complaining that the rules of the game aren't fair because soft-tossers like Jered Weaver are forced to pitch from the same distance as that Kershaw guy from the other team.