Sir Xsarus wrote:
Last year, Comey and the Justice department did this whole "we're not going to pursue charges against Clinton because we don't think a prosecution can succeed" bit, but this year, it seems like "possibility of ever succeeding in a prosecution" has been completely tossed out the window
After a long and involved investigation...
An investigation into activities which were not in doubt, to determine whether said activities violated the law. I know that this may be just crazy talk, but in order to have a criminal investigation you kinda have to start with either a known crime and then try to figure out who committed it, or you have to have known actions by a known person and try to figure out if those actions are criminal.
With Clinton we know who she is and we know she maintained an email server at home which she used to conduct official state department business. The things she did were not in question, nor the fact that she was involved in doing them. The only question was whether doing this involved a violation of the law.
With this "investigation" (and yeah, I'm putting it in air quotes here), we don't have any known activities from any known person that we suspect may have been criminal as our starting point. What we have is a foreign country hacking into a political party's servers and the data from that server later being released by wikileaks, with the presumption that said foreign country obtained that data and leaked it to wikileaks. Great! That's a crime. We can investigate that. So you should be following the trail of that data, right? Find out who was involved in the hack, find out how the data got to wikileaks and see who was responsible, then figure out if you have any jurisdiction over them, and pursue whatever criminal charges you can.
That's how you investigate, right? You start with the crime and follow it to the criminals. Er... but that's not what's happening here. Here, we have this massive gap. Somehow, via what appears to be some combination of extreme speculation and wishful thinking, we've leaped to a conclusion that someone in the Trump campaign was "involved" somehow. No one seems to know what form that involvement may have taken, nor who might have done it, nor how they could have done it. But let's ignore these pesky facts and "investigate".
What are they actually investigating? What possible evidence could be found that could result in any sort of legal charge involving the original actual crime? As I've pointed out a number of times on this forum, barring finding some recording or email showing a clear conversation between someone connected to the Trump campaign discussing and planning the hack and/or release of the data, and/or promising some sort of quid pro quo in return for said hack and/or release, I'm not sure how you can *ever* obtain a prosecution related to the crime you're actually investigating.
What we have here is an investigation that isn't following a crime or a person, but rather just targeting a group of people and seeing if it can find something they did, not necessarily in any way related to a known crime, which they can be charged with, after the fact. Worse, this is 100% politically targeted. You're choosing to target that group based on its association with a single politician. This sort of thing should send chills down all our spines, and thoughts of authoritarian regimes quashing opposition politicians via abuse and misuse of government power.
A sane legal system cannot allow this form of investigation. It's a fishing expedition. You can't just target a group of people because of their political associations (well, or any reason, this just makes it worse) and just look at everything they've done to see if you can find something. This is scarily reminiscent of the McCarthy hearings. It's not about justice. It's not about following evidence. It is purely about using the investigation itself as a tool to hurt a politician and everyone near him.
I predicted this months ago. I said that the mere fact of someone "being under investigation" would be used as ammunition against them. And what are we seeing right now? Leaks that contain, not evidence of criminal activity, but that "Jared Kuchner is being investigated. OMG! There must be something here!". And "Trump's being investigated. Wow this is really getting serious guys!". Seriously. That's the extent of these leaks. Who's being questioned. Who the investigation is looking at. No context for any of this, just fuel for the speculative fire.
So yeah. It's a witch hunt. I'll ask again: Where is the crime, and how is it connected to anyone currently "under investigation"? There is no connection any of us are aware of that isn't purely speculative. Anyone could be "under investigation" because we could speculate that anyone was involved, right? That's not enough, or should not be enough, to actually investigate people's activities. You have to start with the crime and work to the people. But that's not what's going on here.