Rugoz wrote:You said it now a 100 times but it's still nonsense. His intent is crucial. For example:
https://qz.com/1740961/why-trumps-state ... peachment/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... val-229341
If you read otherwise, provide the source (as long as it's not fox news garbage).
I've referred you to basic rules of criminal procedure. In order for there to be a cause of action for malicious prosecution against a prosecutor: first, the prosecutor must
file criminal charges; second, the prosecutor must have done so without probable cause; and third, it must be determined that the prosecutor did so with a malicious intent. Here, you do not have two out of three elements, assuming for the sake of demurrer that Trump's intent was malicious. First, no charges have been filed against Biden; second, there is reasonable cause for investigation and very close to probable cause at this point to file charges. So you would not be able to even sustain a tort for malicious prosecution, which has a much lower burden of proof than a criminal charge. Generally, these types of cases are handled by a tort, not a criminal charge as prosecutors can almost always stand behind prosecutorial immunity. That's why Mueller isn't in prison, even though he has a past that includes putting people innocent of the charges against them in prison and leaving them to rot.
Prosecutorial ImmunityProsecutors cannot be sued for injuries caused by their own misconduct. For example, even if a prosecutor deliberately withholds exculpatory evidence in violation of professional ethics and a defendant’s constitutional rights(cough cough, what Muller did to General Flynn, cough cough), and this willful misconduct results in an innocent person spending decades behind bars for a crime of which they are subsequently exonerated—the prosecutor remains immune from civil liability.
The policy of absolute prosecutorial immunity comes not from Congress but from the Supreme Court, which took 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s command that “every person” who, acting under color of law, violates the rights of another, “shall be liable to the party injured,” and added “except for prosecutors.”
Trump did not request a favor for his campaign. Trump did not ask Zelensky to provide him with any information. On the contrary, the transcript clearly shows that Trump indicated that any results from a Ukrainian investigation be communicated to the AG (or his designate). That IS THE PROPER LEGAL CHANNEL. All the hearsay in the world does not change what is dispositive from the transcript. How many times have you watched a legal show and the attorney says, "Objection your honor, calls for speculation," followed by "sustained." Everything Schiff is doing is for show. Every member of Congress that has been through law school--including Schiff, who once worked as a prosecutor--knows this is wrong. No court would allow it. So Ambassador Taylor's testimony, for example, is hearsay and speculative. He never spoke with Trump before so his contention about what Trump was thinking is purely speculative--not allowed.
A Brief Summary Of Prosecutorial ImmunityNow take the case against Flynn. You guys championed that as a slam dunk for Mueller. Yet, Flynn still has not been sentenced, because the prosecution violated Flynn's rights by not turning over exculpatory evidence. They cannot be prosecuted for that, but the case could be overturned. If they turn over the exculpatory evidence, it may show that they violated Flynn's rights--so they not only face a dismissal of the charges against Flynn, but they may be prosecuted themselves if it can be shown that they manipulated the 302s. So what are they doing? Stonewalling. If they don't turn over the evidence that the court has demanded, the court my dismiss the case
sua sponte.
Cases against Strzok and Page are complicated, because investigators can be found liable at times if they do wrongful things in the course of an investigation. For example, a prosecutor cannot lie under oath, even though they can lie to defendants during questioning without consequence. It's okay that Strzok lied to Flynn, but it's not okay that Strzok went to question Flynn without reasonable cause. Investigators also cannot certify things they know to be false. This is why Comey, Yates, McCabe and Rosenstein may be in trouble with respect to the FISA warrants. They cannot be prosecuted for going after Trump, but they can be prosecuted for lying in an application for a warrant. It's debatable that Strzok had a reasonable basis to open a criminal investigation into Flynn. Strzok's intent is clearly malicious and politically motivated; however, to prosecute him it is not enough to show that he and Page had malicious intentions. It MUST be shown that they did not have a reasonable basis to investigate Flynn, and/or they doctored the original 302 to make it look like Flynn was guilty--that is not permissible. Again, it's very clear that Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strzok, Ohr, Page and others had malice toward the president. That's not enough. Similarly, it's not enough to bring down a president, because he may not have warm creamy feelings in his tummy for his political adversaries.
The case against Trump depends upon much more than his intent. It depends upon whether or not Trump had a reasonable basis to believe that Biden may have committed a crime. If Trump had a malicious reason to go after Biden, and there is a reasonable basis to believe that Biden committed a crime, Trump's malice is beyond relief or remedy. His advocative act provides him with absolute immunity.
Hindsite wrote:President Trump has been very transparent with legitimate investigations. The partisan investigations by the Democrats are not legitimate investigation.
This is a big part of why this impeachment narrative is going nowhere. Barr released the entire Mueller report--something he wasn't legally required to do--but without classified information or grand jury information in ongoing matters. The Democrats threw a monumental hissy fit; yet, now they are conducting secret hearings, leading witnesses, treating hearsay and speculation as probative, interrupting answers they don't like and precluding cross examination. It has left Republicans incredulous, which is why impeachment at this point will go nowhere.
Stormsmith wrote:I agree that intent/motivation is an indication of criminal activity, but may I point out, one can be impeached on behaviour thats simply not up to snuff. Doesn't necessarily mean criminal.
That's a lovely theory, but it has never happened. In fact, no president has ever been removed from office. Only two have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Intent is generally a mitigating issue. E.g., you kill somebody with your car, but it's because you sneezed at a cross walk and your foot slipped off the brake and hit the accelerator versus you were angry at someone and decided to run them over.
Hindsite wrote:Maybe, but I believe it does have to be criminal to also be removed from office without an election.
In theory, they could go outside of black letter law if it were in the spirit of treason, bribery or other high crimes. Right now, we don't even have a crime. Even if we did, it would be immaterial since they don't have any admissible evidence outside of the transcript. Everything so far is hearsay and speculation, which is inadmissible.
Nothing Trump has done at any point comes close to what has been done to him, for which nobody has yet to be prosecuted (although, that appears to be coming soon). This is why it's so hard to nail prosecutors. Yet, there is not nearly the same degree of protection for investigators or intelligence officers, which is why they are getting nervous about Durham. That's why this whole thing against Trump is mulling along in spite of it being utterly fatuous.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
- By Tainari88