Blanche clears up why Comey and not others posting 86 47 (per ABC):
Asked if the DOJ would pursue charges against anybody who posts “86 47” and whether that would impinge their First Amendment rights, Blanche said that “every case is different” and it “would be ill advised for anybody to compare a particular statement to another statement that appears similar.”
“Every time that’s posted, that number is posted, you know that every time there’s a threat against the president, it doesn’t necessarily lead to an indictment. It depends on the investigation. It depends on all kinds of factors,” said Blanche…
“People should be very wary of threatening the life of President Trump, because that is a crime, full stop. OK?” Blanche said. “Now whether it’s a crime that we will ultimately charge, depending on you know, you mentioned the First Amendment – sure, or other cases, other investigative steps, or things that we learned, or things that we, that we uncover from talking to witnesses, from reviewing evidence … there should be no doubt you cannot threaten the life of the president of the United States. Can’t do it, OK? And so beyond that, I’m not going to comment.”
That really clears it up for me.
I mean, there is another actual case where someone posted 86 47 that led to a conviction. That case had many other posts/context, one of which was “I HOPE YOU DIE A PAINFUL DEATH.”
Half-agreed. Louise Flanagan might be old-school mainstream.
Or she might be more like Bush nominees Alito and Thomas, who I’m pretty sure would vote to reverse a dismissal. Roberts? Who knows?
Is it even true that Trump judicial nominees are predictably more conservative, on the few cases with clear political implications, than are Bush family nominees?
How often does it really happen that a western hemisphere president, with dictatorial aspirations, fails to jail those they target? Maybe the answer is – fairly often during their first decade or so in power. But it still doesn’t seem to me the confidence in the American judicial system seen in threads like this is well-placed. Can it really be that SCOTUS needs to be cleared out, but the rest of the judiciary is hunky-dory?
I’m guessing Comey’s best chance is that Judge Flanagan, and the lower appeals judges, spend the next year or two running out the clock in support of dismissal.
But what happens then? If I was Comey’s attorney – or spouse – I would point out that a 2028 Democratic presidential victory (after which the Comey prosecution would probably be dropped) is far from assured, and then he will be in real trouble.
If Comey is offered a deal where the sentencing guideline calls for probation on a first offense, he’d be reckless to turn it down. And since when is he reckless?
Yes, IANAL, and all these D.C. and NYC TV lawyers are saying the prosecution is ridiculous. Maybe the U.S. is a healthier democracy than I think.
There’s another kind of reason why I think Comey has a lot to worry about, but it’s so ugly I’ve been hesitant to say it.
Every time there is a Trump assassination attempt, the jury appeal of the seashell case goes up. Do we really think there will be no further attempts?
And what if there is an attack on a federal judge, whether Aileen Cannon or any other? I think that whenever this happens, there will be a psychological effect, at least for a few months, where fellow judges become less tolerant of ambiguous threats. I realize that their professional code says to ignore such personal emotions. And over the years I have read news stories about incredibly brave judges, such as in mafia influenced parts of Italy. However, judges are human.
If things stay calm, that’s good for Comey. But Trump likes to rile folks up. He is going to have his staff publicize even completely aborted violence, making it sound like vague verbal threats lead to real horror. Caudillos like Donald Trump are good at this.
If Comey is convicted, then Trump has a proven route to destroy more regime opponents. Why wouldn’t he take it? Trump would call Blanche and tell him to, at a minimum, arrest Americans who made and sold the T-shirts. If what Comey did is criminal, what they did is worse. And dictators don’t see a big method to exercise power drop into their lap and then fail to use it.
As for there not being enough prison cells, maybe yes and maybe no. Trump has ordered, without congressional authorization, reopening of Alcatraz.
I’ve argued that the outcome of this case is unpredictable. But I want to acknowledge that the prosecution is, by any standard of fairness, bizarrely and totally unfair. I’m just not as confident as some here that the system can be trusted to work fairly when it comes to such emotionally inflammatory charges.
Since there then will be an inevitable appeal, no different.
If SCOTUS unanimously refuses to allow this case to go forward, it looks like Trump has no ability to lock up enemies. Maybe I’ll feel I shouldn’t have called him a dictator – just a nativist.
I anal and all of that,
Appeal on what grounds? A dismissal with prejudice means that the ruling is the final judgment in the case. The dismissal prohibits the prosecutor from refiling the same charges, ever. They’d need to come up with a different law that Comey broke, specifically, related to this act. If this case goes to trial and Comey is acquitted, or worse the judge issues a directed verdict, then Trump (et al.) have the little problem of double jeopardy. ‘But we really, really want Comey convicted’ just ain’t enough.
Simply, there’s no crimeto prosecute here.
If this isn’t dropped then put your money on a dismissal, with prejudice, and a recommendation that the prosecutors face disciplinary action from the Bar.
Basically…If the pre-trial dismissal is with prejudice or without (assuming it’s not on the merits/no jeopardy), it can still be appealed. DOJ would argue it was improperly dismissed. If the appeal overturns the dismissal, then it goes back to the trial court and the case continues on.
The prejudice distinction would come into play more if the DOJ lost the appeal.
anal and all of that,