SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The new, temporary FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe says that employees loved Comey:
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe Thursday rejected assertions by the White House that FBI employees had lost faith in James Comey and that the bureau's probe into Russian election meddling was one of its most minor concerns. "I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity," McCabe told members of the Senate intelligence committee. He said Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, enjoyed "broad support within the FBI and still does to this day." He added, "The majority, the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey."
Furthermore, he will inform the Senate of any interference with the Russia investigation:
Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe vowed Thursday that he would tell the Senate Intelligence Committee if the White House tried to interfere with the bureau's probe of possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election — though he asserted that there had "been no effort to impede our investigation to date."
Meanwhile, President Trump has undermined the White House's messaging on Comey's firing, saying that he planned to fire "showboat" and "grandstander" James Comey regardless of any recommendation from Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein. The President also insists that he is not under FBI investigation.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday May 12 2017, @04:55PM (15 children)
That's because the Republican Party does not believe in the rule of law.
For the rich and powerful, they haven't believed in the idea of law since at least Richard Nixon, who famously said "Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." Trump definitely doesn't believe in the rule of law: To Trump, legal proceedings are people starting some sort of feud with him and trying to get up in his business. And Trump has 2 ways of dealing with threats: Buy them off (e.g. Pam Bondi), or intimidate them (e.g. Marla Maples). Truth, justice, and honesty have no role in this process, what matters is power as expressed by money, political support, and ultimately force of arms.
It's worth noting that this opposition to the rule of law isn't limited to the movers-and-shakers at all, this actually pervades many ideas pushed by many Republicans, like:
- Jury nullification, in which a juror believes the defendant is guilty but finds them not guilty regardless because they either disagree with the law or agree with the guilty defendant's actions. Which means that guilt or innocence can now be determined not by the law, nor by the facts of the case, but whether a juror decides they like the defendant more than the victim.
- Prosecutorial discretion, in which a prosecutor doesn't bring charges even though they have sufficient evidence to convict, not in exchange for information as part of a deal but simply backing off because they don't feel like going after the person in question. Again, moving the question away from "Were the person's actions legal?" to "Does the prosecutor like/agree with the person?"
- Support for police officers, even when they summary execute people, never mind the Fifth Amendment. The mindset is "The cop shot him? He must have done something to deserve it."
- Their support or hatred of judges tends to have nothing at all to do with whether the judges' decision was legally correct, and everything to do with whether it agrees with their ideology. For example, backing Roy Moore and his 10 Commandments monument, but hating David Souter for his careful reading of judicial precedent in Planned Parenthood v Casey.
- Armed resistance against lawful authority. This particular strain of conservative thought started no later than 1993 during the Waco TX Branch Davidian standoff, and continues today with the Bundy family receiving all kinds of support for actions ranging from threatening law enforcement with lethal force to breaking and entering.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday May 12 2017, @05:24PM (10 children)
WTF? The point of jury nullification is to allow the jury the power to refuse to convict because they disagree with the law, not because they like the defendant. If you don't like jury nullification, then you need to get rid of juries altogether; almost every other nation on the planet has. Asking laypeople to decide the facts of a case makes no sense at all; they're the least qualified of anyone. Worse, many times judges will throw out jury verdicts if they don't like them, so again what's the point of a jury? The only thing juries are good for really is to have a kangaroo court where someone gets convicted based on completely emotional testimony rather than actual facts. (So jury nullification seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice it pretty much never happens, and instead innocent people get convicted because they're black and the prosecutor is looking for an easy win. Jury nullification would be a good "safety valve" if juries were composed of intelligent people, but they're not because the attorneys make sure to throw those people out.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:39PM (2 children)
Jury nullification has value, but not within the rhetorical framework of "law and order." [google.com]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:34AM (1 child)
Jury nullification is a revolutionary act. It also almost _never_ happens. If it did start happening a lot, that would be the time stash some food for coming difficulties.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @05:28AM
Well, to go all lawyerey on you - it seems appropriate!
> If it did start happening for a lot of laws, that would be the time stash some food for coming difficulties
FTFY. If it started happening a lot for one law that would be no big concern. It would signify a broad social consensus. Eg. if juries started tossing weed convictions? Sure, whatever, who is surprised and who cares maaaaaaan.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday May 12 2017, @05:59PM (5 children)
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that a juror disagreed in theory with the law being used to charge somebody with a crime. But they also hate the defendant's guts for reasons which have nothing to do with the evidence of the crime presented in the courtroom (e.g. the defendant is a neo-Nazi and the juror is Jewish). Do you seriously think that juror is likely to nullify on that case?
And furthermore, one of the most prominent instances where jury nullification happened on a regular basis was in those rare cases where lynchings of black people ever made it into court. As in, those prosecutors that didn't exercise their discretion and simply not charge anybody for the lynching (which was fairly common) could present in court photographs taken at the time of the crime showing the defendants at the scene lynching the victim, and the jury would acquit in less than 5 minutes. In other words, the jury was nullifying not because they disagreed with the existence of laws against murder, but because they decided that this particular murder was just fine and dandy.
Also, thank you for proving my point: The way rule of law is supposed to work is that it's not supposed to matter whether jurors agree with it when deciding cases. The right way of dealing with a law you disagree with is to get your legislative representatives to change it, or for the defendant to convince a judge it's unconstitutional, not to let go the defendants who happen to get a juror who opposes a particular law.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday May 12 2017, @06:16PM (4 children)
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that a juror disagreed in theory with the law being used to charge somebody with a crime. But they also hate the defendant's guts for reasons which have nothing to do with the evidence of the crime presented in the courtroom (e.g. the defendant is a neo-Nazi and the juror is Jewish). Do you seriously think that juror is likely to nullify on that case?
Obviously, it's not a perfect system, but that's why (in theory) there are 12 jurors, not one. So one juror that hates the defendant's guts might rule guilty even though they disagree with that law, but maybe one of the other 11 will refuse. Jury decisions have to be unanimous so a hung jury will result, and a new trial will be required. And again, it isn't a perfect system; the whole reason for nullification is because the government is broken and allowed a bad law to pass (or for a situation to occur where it'd be a travesty of justice for someone to be convicted under the law because it's an exceptional case, or the law is too broad, etc.). So the alternative is to just not have nullification and have no chance at all for the defendant to escape punishment, rather than a small chance.
And furthermore, one of the most prominent instances where jury nullification happened on a regular basis was in those rare cases where lynchings of black people ever made it into court. ... In other words, the jury was nullifying not because they disagreed with the existence of laws against murder, but because they decided that this particular murder was just fine and dandy.
Yep, you're now showing why juries in general are a bad idea. It's just like democratic government: it seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice it just doesn't work out, as proven by the recent Presidential election. Democratic republican forms of government only work when you have a well-educated citizenry; same most likely goes for juries. But we have uneducated morons for citizens, and our juries are even worse because they're intentionally selected to be the most idiotic and emotionally-driven members of society. There's a reason that European nations got rid of juries ages ago.
The right way of dealing with a law you disagree with is to get your legislative representatives to change it
Sounds good in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Are you a lobbyist for an organization with millions or billions of dollars in assets and able to make generous campaign contributions to get your voice heard by a congressperson? No? Then you're not going to get your legislative representative to even listen to you, much less work hard to change the law.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 12 2017, @07:50PM (3 children)
Jury decisions have to be unanimous
Well, no, not always.
In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, [most states require] the jury to produce a unanimous verdict [, but for] civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.
- Findlaw [findlaw.com]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday May 12 2017, @08:02PM (2 children)
Well, we're talking about jury nullification here, which is something that's only a real factor with criminal trials.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 12 2017, @10:44PM
Yeah that's why I thought someone (even if not you personally) might want to know that not all states require all the jurors to agree.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday May 13 2017, @02:05AM
Jury nullification can happen in civil trials, though it's usually discussed in relationship to criminal penalties. Nevertheless, there are legal standards for liability, negligence, etc. that apply to civil actions. It's possible for a jury to believe that a defendant is actually liable, etc. according to the technical legal standard but decide in favor of the defendant nonetheless because they believe the legal standard is unfair in the present case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @07:10PM
WTF? The point of jury nullification is to allow the jury the power to refuse to convict because they disagree with the law, not because they like the defendant.
Yeah, right. I've got two words for you on that:
Oh. Jay.
As in O.J.
I don't think the jury felt the law against murder was the problem, or that O.J. was innocent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @09:28PM
1.) I'm a Democrat, and there are plenty of circumstances where I'm sympathetic to nullification. If a statuette is written extremely broadly, or carries a mandatory minimum sentence that a juror simply can't countenance, should we really judge that person? Why have a jury, instead of a computer, if not add human judgement and intelligence?
2.) Prosecutorial discretion may suck, but the alternative is horrifying - especially given the aforementioned overbroad laws and mandatory minimums.
3.) Agreed on the uncritical support for police violence. It's deeply telling.
4.) To be honest, me and my fellow liberals do this all the time. I actually think there's an argument to be made for undoing Marbury v Madison and ending the co-equality of the Judiciary. If Congress could actually pass all/almost all the laws they want, we might find Congress forced to take more responsibility.
5.) The conservative reaction to reports about escalating right-wing extremism after Obama was elected is a great example here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:27AM (2 children)
Well, Thexalon, I love you dearly, but who does believe in the rule of law? You can't seriously mean the Democratic Party does. They're perfectly fine with the American government torturing people, which is both a crime under American law as well as international jurisprudence. They're perfectly fine with holding people indefinitely without trial. They're perfectly fine with not prosecuting Wall Street banks that have committed crime after white collar crime, brazenly, and have even been okey dokey with then handing them more giant piles of money and apologizing to them for their bruised feelings. All those things and far, far more have nothing to do with a respect for the rule of law.
Don't read what I'm saying as a defense of the Republican Party, because I'm not. What I am saying is the whole damn thing is rotten to the core. There are no good guys. At least, there are no good guys in Washington. If there are any good guys in the whole story they're here among us hoi poloi, somewhere.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:41PM (1 child)
I specifically didn't say a word about Democrats, because I think both of the big political parties distract from their very real problems by arguing "Look, the other guys are worse!"
As for the Democrats, my impression is that they don't believe in the rule of law for the wealthy and powerful, but do tend to believe in it for the "little people" (meaning everybody else). There isn't the same kind of "might makes right" thinking, more "right makes might" thinking (neither of which is really accurate).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Monday May 15 2017, @01:52PM
Politics in the UK, and I suspect many other countries where I don't speak the language enough to understand, is exactly the same. The Tories won power (senior/on-top in a coalition) from Labour by repeatedly blaming Labour for the global financial crash, all helpfully repeated and amplified by our terrible tabloid press, and people believed it. Look at that and tell me democracy is functioning adequately; when "it was like that when I got here" and "voting for them gives you cooties" are the larger part of all political argument then we clearly have a failure of democratic engagement and the democratic process.