# "No Reasonable Prosecutor" **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 8, 2016, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-reasonable-prosecutor/759422 "2016-07-08T19:48:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-reasonable-prosecutor/759422/2 "2016-07-08T19:57:50Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I think the line from the FBI director that “No Reasonable Prosecutor” would pursue a case against Hillary Clinton. This seems to me to be a pretty ballsy statement from him especially considering that the law is clearly against her, since it requires no element of intent. It seems to poison the well against anyone who would decide to prosecute the case since she can just point to the FBI’s statement as proof that she’s being unjustly prosecuted. > > To me it seems that he’s exceeded the scope of his job by his pronouncement since his job isn’t to decide who to prosecute rather it is to gather evidence. I know this will get all sorts of partisan responses so I’d like to limit the discussion to should the FBI or Police make statements of this nature where they are basically daring prosecutors to disagree with them? When there is a complete lack of any prior prosecutions under the same fact pattern? It’s a very defensible claim. It’s also not really admissible at a subsequent trial, should one occur. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-reasonable-prosecutor/759422)._