Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
so when is the justice department under Sessions going prosecute Clinton for the illegal private email server & Uranium 1?
|
Not before the DOJ has thoroughly investigated THE FACTS.
As for the hogwash about "circumstantial evidence" being a "bar to prosecution," that's exactly what it is: "hogwash"!
Unlike some on here I won't claim to have personally seen "everyone," but every criminal jury charge I have seen (Federal and State) includes an "instruction" to the Jury on "circumstantial evidence" and the use of it in the decision making. FYI: Comey was LYING about not being able to prosecute because of a lack of "direct evidence" ... and I say "LYING" because he was a U.S. prosecutor and EVERY case he presented to a jury had a "circumstantial evidence" instruction in it (and I don't have to see "everyone" he submitted, because it's SOP!)
This is the first one I came across. It's from 6th Circuit, but is from the Federal Pattern Jury Instructions:
Quote:
1.5 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.
You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.
|
BTW: "Circumstantial Evidence" instructions are used in BOTH civil and criminal cases.
That's why Comey should be INVESTIGATED AS WELL!
Another Special Council in the works?
