[johnforbes]

Just to prove the Special Counsel, and staff, are not neutral:

"Federal Election Commission records show that Deputy Special Counsel Karen Gilbert has donated over $2,000 to the former campaigns of President Biden and former President Barack Obama.

[Clownkicker]

Dimwit, EVERYONE who prosecutes anyone is "not neutral."

Everyone has a point of view. Prosecutors absolutely have a point of view. And no one can escape one's own point of view.
That's why we have juries and judges to counteract improper partisan prosecutions. If Trump can't be found "not guilty" in a Republican state under a judge he himself appointed, then it will be because he is guilty. (Gee, I wish I could appoint my own judge.)

Unfortunately, Trump himself has provided the proof of his guilt several times over. And that isn't anyone's fault but his own. It certainly isn't the fault of a lack of neutrality.

What you are saying is that no Republican should ever be prosecuted if the prosecutor has a Democrat viewpoint. Unfortunately that also means you believe no Democrat should ever be prosecuted by a Republican prosecutor.

Unfortunately, that also does in your dishonest claim you want the law to be applied equally and fairly. You don't, if you believe a "lack of neutrality" should stop Trump's trials.

[johnforbes]

In some cosmic sense, it is true that nobody is neutral.

However, the appearance of neutrality is part and parcel of the notion of justice.

The deputy here has proven her political bias, which was dumb of her because she also wanted to pretend to be neutral and thus get a chance to nail Trump.

[Clownkicker]

johnfibs says he want the law to be applied equally and fairly.

Okay, let's look at how the law has been applied in the past five years, some of those under Trump himself:



"Since 2018, there have been about a dozen criminal prosecutions of people retaining classified or national defense information, according to the Justice Department.

In many of the cases, the defendants received lengthy prison sentences, reflecting how seriously the government takes protecting the country’s secrets.

Two former analysts at the National Security Agency — Harold Martin and Nghia Hoang Pho — received nine years and five and a half years in prison, respectively, for taking classified information home. Mr. Martin, a Navy veteran, admitted that for nearly two decades, he stuffed his home office, car and garden shed with 50 terabytes of information, much of it stamped “classified.” It was one of the largest thefts of classified documents in history, officials said.

In April, Jeremy Brown, 48, a former Special Forces sergeant, was sentenced to seven years and three months in prison for retention of classified information as well as other crimes. Mr. Brown was briefly part of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia, and was photographed in combat attire during the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In that case, Mr. Brown refused to accept responsibility for wrongdoing. During his sentencing, the judge said that he had been “defiant to the end.”

Last year, Kendra Kingsbury, an F.B.I. analyst, pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully retaining national security documents at her Dodge City, Kan., home. Prosecutors said she had retained 386 classified documents on hard drives and compact discs.

She is scheduled to be sentenced next week, in a case that will be watched closely by the government and Mr. Trump’s legal team. David Raskin, one of the prosecutors who handled Ms. Kingsbury’s case, is now working for Jack Smith, the special counsel leading the case against the former president."-New York Times

Undoubtedly johnforbes wants Trump to be treated exactly the same way his administration treated past defendants for keeping classified documents.

And I hope Trump enjoys his time in prison. At least until he is pardoned (as would likely happen, regardless of who wins the next election.)

Again, it is absurd to insist that a Democrat can never prosecute a Republican and that a Republican can never prosecute a Democrat. That's just stupid, johnny.

[johnforbes]

Yes, security is taken so seriously that 6 million new illegal aliens have been let into the country since 2021.

Hunter was high as a kite on illegal drugs and flying at taxpayer expense to do business deals with foreign business endeavors.

[Clownkicker]

What johnforbes is trying to say in his usual bumbling, hypocritical manner is that he fully supports the Trump and Biden Justice Department continuing in its tradition of prosecuting cases of classified document possession and dispersion, as Trump did by allowing documents to be loaded onto a laptop owned by a Republican PAC member, and showing classified documents to reporters at Mar-a-Lago.

[johnforbes]

The Espionage Act of 1917 was intended to deal with spying in World War 1.

This biased fellow Smith, and his henchman Gilbert who donated to Democrats, obviously share one goal -- to abuse the legal system to derail Trump re 2024.

But that is a politiccal goal, as a Banana Republic would have for its "justice"...

[Clownkicker]

Sure, johnny, simply ignore all the damning evidence against Trump.

That sounds like a viable trial strategy.

You aren't on Trump's incompetent bottom-feeder legal team by any chance......?

(Trump's legal team is also a critical part of Trump's legal strategy. When he's convicted he will file an appeal claiming incompetent representation. (Which everyone will have to concede, from the look of things.)

[johnforbes]

When Clinton got oral sex from a young intern in the workplace, the excuse from Democrats was that justice had to be proportional.

Fair enough, the world didn't end when Harding had sex in a White House closet, nor did it end when Clowntroller came out of the closet.

But a Deputy Special Counsel can't have donated to Democrats and seem neutral when going after Trump in what everyone knows is an effort to derail the 2024 candidacy of Trump.

To be credible, a prosecutor or a court needs to seem neutral, appear fair, seem objective.

Smith and Gilbert are both Democrats, and both have been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct before.

[Clownkicker]

There is no requirement that a prosecutor be "neutral" in a prosecution. There is no law requiring this. It is also an impossibility.

EVERY prosecutor is NOT neutral on their prosecutions. They actually believe those they prosecute are guilty of committing a crime. And why do they believe this? Because they have seen the evidence against the accused, and thus they are not neutral on the case any longer.

This does not mean that because the evidence has convinced them of the guilt of the accused that they should then recuse themselves from the prosecutions. To the contrary, it means they absolutely should continue in the job they were hired to do for us and continue the prosecutions in order to protect society from criminals.

Why johnforbes is here insisting that no one should be prosecuted for committing a crime if their prosecutor believes they committed a crime is pure insanity. I would go so far as to REQUIRE prosecutors to believe those they prosecute are guilty of committing a crime and thus not be neutral when they prosecute someone.

johnforbes simply made up the idea that a prosecutor should be "neutral". And his idiotic idea that no Republican should ever be allowed to prosecute a Democrat, or that no Democrat should ever be allowed to prosecute a Republican, is sheer insanity.

If only dimwit johnny would attend a few basic law classes it might prevent him from making himself a laughing stock on a regular basis.

[johnforbes]

Clowntroller is wrong in a lot of ways precisely because Clown never went to law school.

Heck, Clown -- like Kamala -- was probably too dumb to locate one on a map.

Not just impropriety, but the appearance thereof, should be avoided by prosecutors.

Sure, the world is not ideal and that goal isn't always lived up to.

But there is a reason courthouses look impressive, with marble and pillars and robes and solemn oaths and such -- it is to convey the impression of received justice.

Many professors, including Jerry Mashaw at Yale, emphasize this.

[Clownkicker]

"Not just impropriety, but the appearance thereof, should be avoided by prosecutors."-johnfoibles

And what do you think is so improper about a prosecutor who believes the accused is guilty, which means he is no longer neutral, dimwit? Your view that people should only be charged with a crime when the prosecutor doesn't actually believe the accused is guilty of a crime is truly moronic.

A non-neutral prosecutor who is convinced of the guilt of the accused before prosecuting him is exactly how the justice system should be.

[johnforbes]

Clown, you misunderstand the entire situation.

Sure, a stainless and pure mind devoid of any bias might not be possible in the real world.

But a prosecutor can't have overt evidence of political bias, such as donating to candidates from another party while prosecuting a person from the other party.

Both Smith and Gibson have been sanctioned in the past for prosecutorial misconduct, and sadly that was probably their raison d'etre here.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, you misunderstand the entire situation.

"But a prosecutor can't have overt evidence of political bias,..."-johnfibs

Of course he can, dummy. Most prosecutors in the U.S. declare a political party when they run for office. And most Federal prosecutors were previously state prosecutors. If that doesn't indicate "political bias" I don't know what does.

What is wrong with you?


But now, in the case of current Federal prosecutors, please be so good as to point out the section of the Department of Justice's guidelines on political activities that says political contributions show unacceptable bias and are against the rules.
https://www.justice.gov/jmd/file/834496/download

[johnforbes]

You need the appearance of neutrality, of impartiality, in order for citizens to feel that there is a "justice" system rather than a system which merely protects important people like the son of a president.

Donating to Democrats merely showed that the Deputy Special Counsel is not neutral, and is political, but of course that's why she and Smith (both previously accused of prosecutorial misconduct) were selected.

This is all 100 percent political as part of an effort to derail Trump re 2024.

[Clownkicker]

So you're saying you've got nothin' but irrelevant partisan bullshit, as always.

Got it.

[elklindo69]

If any of us attempted to bribe a traffic court judge they would have tossed our asses into prison. However it's OK to send Judge Alito to Alaska for a fancy fishing trip so he can rule any way you want.

How is not a crime?

[johnforbes]

It is a fine line whether paying some judge to give a speech, or a fishing trip, is some sort of tangential emolument or just a bribe.

As a capitalist, if I spend money on something I expect to get some good or service for it, so I can see the point Elkin is making.

[Clownkicker]

Amazing, johnforbes is beginning to see the light.

But a fishing trip for a Supreme Court Justice is the least of our worries. Anyone who sells themselves that cheaply is likely doing far worse.

[johnforbes]

No, Mr Forbes has always seen that light and has never believed that justices should be given summer lecture jobs at foreign law schools, or any of that stuff which is essentially selling access to power or influence.

Even more fundamentally, it was only lack of central AC in humid DC which led to the wacky notion of the Supreme Court being in recess for July, August, and Sept anyhow.

That is also archaic and should end.

Remember Douglas loved going fishing out West and having the extra time to bang stewardesses?

[Clownkicker]

No one cares if he was banging stewardesses, johnny, as long as the stewardesses weren't provided gratis by the airline who had a case before the court.

[johnforbes]

Of course, people cared whether "Wild Bill" Douglas was banging stewardesses?

By using his position as a justice, he was cutting into the available supply, thus disadvantaging other stalwart young men.

Not those who were light in the loafers like Clown, of course...