Posted on 04/20/2018 2:49:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Fired FBI official Andrew McCabe’s fate rests in the hands of a Trump-appointed prosecutor, now that the Justice Department’s inspector general has sent a criminal referral over an investigative finding that he lied to James Comey and bureau investigators about a media disclosure.
That referral, sent by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, is now being considered by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie Liu. President Trump appointed Liu in July 2017.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
District of Columbia...Chances of even being indicted is 0-0.
Never say never
If a case ever called for a venue change, this is it. Everybody within 150 miles of DC Swamp Central has a vested interest in keeping the stinking, fetid thing alive and kicking.
He’s dead Jim!
He’s toast. Jessie will roast him. She has far more evidence to go through in his file and McCabe is burned.
The prosecution can't ask for a venue change. (U.S. Const., Article III, sec. 2, cl. 3; Amend. VI).
Well, if he is convicted, that would be one down and at least 20 to go...
I hope she votes conservatively, but I’m not counting on it.
Conservatives have a bad reputation for folding and voting liberal for issues when their vote really matters. It could be peer pressure. The Libs far out number conservative judges in most court systems across the country.
We had Justice Roberts about O-Care, we just had Neil Gorsuch about immigration laws. Although I understand the law needs to be better written, it still slows down our progress by a year or three.
“If a case ever called for a venue change, this is it. Everybody within 150 miles of DC Swamp Central has a vested interest in keeping the stinking, fetid thing alive and kicking.”
Move it to Wyoming. Any trial of these democrat bastards in DC will only be repeats of the OJ Simpson farce.
Too bad we don’t have an Attorney General.
L
The Impossible Standard to Change Venue–The Massey Mine Case Is Still in West Virginia
November 10, 2015The Legal Standard for a Change of Venue
The standard for a change of venue is high. In describing the standard, the district court stated:
Under Rule 21, a defendant may move for transfer for prejudice. Here’s the rule:
(a) For Prejudice. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court must transfer the proceeding against that defendant to another district if the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.
This determination requires a two-step process (United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 732 (4th Cir. 1991)).
First, a trial court must address whether the publicity is so inherently prejudicial that trial proceedings must be presumed to be tainted. . . . In that case, a motion for a change of venue should be granted before jury selection begins.
Second, the court should not presume prejudice from the amount of pre-trial publicity. Rather, a trial court customarily should take the second step of conducting a voir dire of prospective jurors to determine if actual prejudice exists. . . .Only where voir dire reveals that an impartial jury cannot be impanelled would a change of venue be justified.
Basically, the court has to believe that it is impossible to impanel an impartial jury in the district. It’s not enough to show that jurors will be subject to considerable negative publicity surrounding the trial; the defense must show that jurors from that area cannot be impartial and objective.
Why It is Hard to Win a Change of Venue
One hurdle to winning a change of venue is that judges are supremely confident in their ability to weed out biased jurors during the voir dire process. The jury pool in a big case can be hundreds of jurors and a typical judge will have no doubt that she can find twelve unbiased ones.
A second challenge is the widespread nature of the media. Defendants will often present evidence of biased media coverage in the area and statements from the general public about the defendant. Experts can often be useful in this area as well.
Between cable and the internet, however, the government can always argue that moving a case will make no difference; anyone, anywhere can learn about the defendant.
So, not only do you have to convince the court that jurors will be impartial in your district, but you also have to show that the bias won’t be as extreme somewhere else. This, among other things, was a major challenge for the defense here.
E
(See, I can type a single letter too whoo-hoo)
“We do!”
Couldn’t tell by any of his actions.
“I haven’t lost faith in Sessions!”
Well you can “faith” in one hand and take a dump in the other. Then tell me which one fills up first.
L
I hope they shift it to Huber in Utah
My support for Sessions is unwavering and is based upon decades of distinguished public service and skilled prosecution, whereas Sessions saw to the end of a Klansman's execution, for example.
I know you like your AGs hogging the cameras, tweeting, or leaking to the media, but there's a reason why Sessions is called "The Executioner." He stays behind the scenes and do the dirty work, and you FReepers bashing him for refusing to pull an Eric Holder are going to eat some nasty crow.
For him to be suddenly maligned and part of the Swamp is so preposterous that it shouldn't even warrant a reply.
“whereas Sessions saw to the end of a Klansman’s execution, for example.”
That was decades ago. He’s done nothing of note as AG.
Absolutely nothing.
Nor will he.
L
“I know you like your AGs hogging the cameras, tweeting, or leaking to the media, ”
Actually, I prefer an AG doing his job. You know, getting indictments and convictions of actual criminals. Something that, sadly, seems beyond his abilities. I’d love to be wrong about him. I really would.
But I’m not. He’s had over a year and he’s accomplished nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.