Off-Topic: Saw A "Trending" alert
(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
MartiniMan
-
|
Subject:
|
Saw A "Trending" alert
|
Date:
|
1/26/2016 5:19:55 PM
|
|
I saw that as well and it should be taken with a grain of salt. Andy McCarthy has written a lot on this. The FBI doesn't have the authority to indict anyone. They have to make that recommendation to a "prosecutor" who then convenes a grand jury. In this case DOJ is the ultimate decision maker as to whether to convene a grand jury and that is by no means a certainty or in my view even remotely likely regardless of the evidence the FBI develops. So step one is FBI makes a recommendation. Step 2, DOJ agrees and convenes a grand jury to view the evidence. Step 3 the grand jury decides to indict or not. If they do it either goes to trial or is settled. I have no doubt based on what we know, which is probably a small amount of the daming evidence, that they will recommend this to a gradn jury. I seriously doubt that DOJ will concur.
What is then left is for the FBI to leak the information and let the public decide. A huge miscarriage of justice that sends the message that if you are politically powerful you are immune to prosecution for your misdeeds. But then again, when has that happened before?!?!? <sarc off>
|
|