After Hillary investigation, FBI stands for Federal Bureau of Invertebrates
by Jenna Ellis • July 5, 2016
“Let me be clear–We’re not saying that someone who did something similar wouldn’t have charges brought against them. We’re just not bringing charges in this particular case.” – FBI Director James Comey from the press conference.
“I knew it.”
This is the general sentiment from Americans after FBI Director James Comey said today that his office would not be recommending criminal charges from the Department of Justice against Hillary Clinton. We all saw this coming. The Right is angry; the Left is smug. But let’s dispel a few legal myths.
1. Prosecutorial discretion does exist, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be abused.
Prosecutors, including federal officers, make judgment calls about the evidence in cases. They choose which charges to file, if they file at all, and whether in some instances (like this one) convene a Grand Jury for that purpose. And it is supposed to be based on what the evidence shows. Because prosecutors have discretion, it is imperative that this power not be abused. Prosecutors should act like umps and fairly call balls and strikes, not act as Mrs. Clinton’s first base coach.
Ironically, discretion is most often abused to over-prosecute when there is really not sufficient evidence to meet the legal standard for bringing a case, but the prosecutor does so anyway for political or personal reasons. However, prosecutors can abuse their discretion by choosing not to pursue criminal charges for personal or political reasons.
This is why “special prosecutors” exist—when a certain office has too close connections with the suspect, or a particular prosecutor’s relative or friend is charged, special prosecutors are called in to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Why was this not done here? Attorney General Loretta Lynch has close personal and professional connections with the Clintons, having served on the legal advisory team during Whitewater in 1992. She even met with fmr. President Bill Clinton mere days ago in a “chance” meeting at an airport. In any other legal circumstance, those facts alone would require a special prosecutor.
During trial, if I even happen to so much as make eye contact with a juror outside the courtroom in the hallway, I am forbidden by law to interact even with pleasantries (such as discussing grandchildren) without reporting it to the presiding judge for a determination of contamination and improper influence.
Why has the integrity of prosecutorial discretion clearly not been preserved here? ...
More from the Strident Conservative.
