Appointing a Special Prosecutor to Charge Hillary does NOT Violate Due Process

I see a lot of people claiming prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate Due Process, and this is completely untrue.

This is ignorance perpetuated by those who have no experience with the US legal system.

Or it is political favoritism and bias aiming to protect an alleged criminal from the Judicial process. In that case it's extremely embarrassing because it reveals that people are so embroiled in the election that they'll cheat.

Such claims essentially infer Hillary is so above the rule of Law that she gets a "special form of Due Process" which amounts to being untouchable.

I.
Facts:

1) To charge and prosecute someone all you need is an allegation and a willing prosecutor. An affidavit can merely say "They did X or Y".

Evidence isn't always required, and the evidence phase comes later in the process. Without evidence a prosecution is likely to fail, but a court can still convict someone without a shred of decent evidence (this is not uncommon).

2) A Bill of Particulars doesn't have to include much evidence if any, it merely has to specifically identify the allegations in a particular format.

The Bill doesn't even come till a later phase after Presentment, Indictment, or Criminal Information is rendered against the Defendant.

3) Due Process means that someone's Rights must be protected by Law when you are within the Legal Process.

No one has a Right to be free from prosecution over an allegation.

However if they win, they can claim malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest, abuse of process, and levy criminal accusations against their opposition.

4) Statutes of Limitations are general guidelines to protect people from late or old issues.

A Court can "toll" those limitations with "good cause", and there is a lot of leeway there for creative reasoning.

So even if time limits run out, a Court can toll it and extend that time period to allow for prosecution.

Some crimes even have no limitations or extremely long periods of time where they might be prosecuted.

Courts have a lot of discretion here.

5) A case isn't truly over until you get a "Not Guilty" verdict as Double Jeopardy clauses protect you from repeated prosecutions.

There are many options to fight, from venue changes to appeals processes. You can even reopen a case and have new hearings or get retrials in the same court. Very little is truly 'set in stone'.

II.
Please research these topics thoroughly.

If I made a mistake, correct me.

Please keep the discussion on topic (Due Process, the legal system, and prosecuting Hillary being a viable legal reality, specific charges and remedies).

If you believe Hillary can claim specific defenses like privilege or immunity please explain your reasoning.

This topic will be very broad in scope and as long as you stick to the subject at least in general, I'll entertain it.

Thanks!

a reply to: muzzleflash

I see a lot of people claiming prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate Due Process, and this is completely untrue.

Of course it is untrue. Prosecuting someone for a crime does not violate due process in and of itself.

What was said, which is the reason for you making this thread, is that you would support Trump if he promised a "purge" of the US government and the response to that was that it would violate due process.

Context is important.

Oh, a Witness is required though.

An allegation in itself can be considered legal evidence though it can in reality be an unsubstantiated claim.

Without a witness nothing can happen.

There is a large range of potential witnesses in criminal allegations. A police officer for example can prosecute even if a "victim" refuses to in some cases.

Due Process demands you have a Right to face and question any witnesses against you.

Without a witness you can have the case dismissed for lack thereof.

a reply to: introvert

That's out of context and not the subject of this thread.

My views on Trump are a different topic.
Do not try to derail this again.

Mods please snip his 2nd paragraph for attempting to drift or derail a perfectly good thread. Thanks.

a reply to: muzzleflash

If you believe Hillary can claim specific defenses like privilege or immunity please explain your reasoning.

she has already been cleared for the emails, of which trump said she would be in prison.
privilege or immunity isnt needed.
an ability to understand basic english and a google search clears it up.

a reply to: muzzleflash

It is on topic because this is what you said:

I see a lot of people claiming prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate Due Process, and this is completely untrue.

I have not seen anyone say that prosecuting Hillary would violate due process. They said the purge you suggested would.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert

That's out of context and not the subject of this thread.

My views on Trump are a different topic.
Do not try to derail this again.

Mods please snip his 2nd paragraph for attempting to drift or derail a perfectly good thread. Thanks.

LOL LOL LOL Sensitive much? Relax man he's not attacking your messiah.

a reply to: introvert

If you believe that the government is corrupt, if you believe the establishment is corrupt, then the only thing left is, for a lack of a better word... a purge. The only option is to keep the corruption in power.

Trump is not going to make new laws, or use executive powers, he's will just allow the people to follow the law, no matter where it leads. Imagine that, a president that will actually follow the law that already are written. Privilege will not help the establishment with President Trump.

How many people in the government and in media will have legal issues, when the law is applied across the board.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: muzzleflash

It is on topic because this is what you said:

I see a lot of people claiming prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate Due Process, and this is completely untrue.

I have not seen anyone say that prosecuting Hillary would violate due process. They said the purge you suggested would.

Where are you trying to derail this thread?

My views on Trump, things I may have said in other threads at other times, etc - are OFF TOPIC.

Mods???

“our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”- Comey

Hillary was never cleared of anything what so ever. The only thing that occurred was a statement that no one was likely to be willing to prosecute.

a reply to: thinline

Yes, prosecuting alleged criminals is a valid legal process.

It is how we execute the law and enforce it in terms of criminal violations of the law.

Correct.

A prosecutor may be willing to prosecute at any time in the future.

It may be unlikely but it is theoretically possible and valid.

a reply to: thinline

Trump is not going to make new laws, or use executive powers, he's will just allow the people to follow the law, no matter where it leads. Imagine that, a president that will actually follow the law that already are written. Privilege will not help the establishment with President Trump.

To investigate for wrongdoing and removing people from positions of power by using the laws on the books is perfectly acceptable.

A "purge" is not that.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: muzzleflash

It is on topic because this is what you said:

I see a lot of people claiming prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate Due Process, and this is completely untrue.

I have not seen anyone say that prosecuting Hillary would violate due process. They said the purge you suggested would.

Where are you trying to derail this thread?

My views on Trump, things I may have said in other threads at other times, etc - are OFF TOPIC.

Mods???

Show me where "lots of people" claimed that prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate due process.

originally posted by: MagicCow

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert

That's out of context and not the subject of this thread.

My views on Trump are a different topic.
Do not try to derail this again.

Mods please snip his 2nd paragraph for attempting to drift or derail a perfectly good thread. Thanks.

LOL LOL LOL Sensitive much? Relax man he's not attacking your messiah.

That's off topic, and a personal attack.

Moderation please?

There will be no relaxation - only on topic reasonable friendly discussion about the OP.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: muzzleflash

It is on topic because this is what you said:

I see a lot of people claiming prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate Due Process, and this is completely untrue.

I have not seen anyone say that prosecuting Hillary would violate due process. They said the purge you suggested would.

Where are you trying to derail this thread?

My views on Trump, things I may have said in other threads at other times, etc - are OFF TOPIC.

Mods???

Show me where "lots of people" claimed that prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate due process.

Give me a break...
What a desperate request.

You're cornered.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: muzzleflash

It is on topic because this is what you said:

I see a lot of people claiming prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate Due Process, and this is completely untrue.

I have not seen anyone say that prosecuting Hillary would violate due process. They said the purge you suggested would.

Where are you trying to derail this thread?

My views on Trump, things I may have said in other threads at other times, etc - are OFF TOPIC.

Mods???

Show me where "lots of people" claimed that prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate due process.

Give me a break...
What a desperate request.

You're cornered.

As I thought. You made it up and this topic referred back to the conversation that took place in which due process was mentioned as part of the "purge" you suggested.

As far as charging Hillary with a crime, it would not be a violation in and of itself. It would only be a violation if she was removed from office or faced other consequences without being found guilty of wrongdoing.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: thinline

Trump is not going to make new laws, or use executive powers, he's will just allow the people to follow the law, no matter where it leads. Imagine that, a president that will actually follow the law that already are written. Privilege will not help the establishment with President Trump.

To investigate for wrongdoing and removing people from positions of power by using the laws on the books is perfectly acceptable.

A "purge" is not that.

Purge:
noun
1.
an abrupt or violent removal of a group of people from an organization or place.
"a purge of the ruling class is absolutely necessary"
synonyms: removal, expulsion, ejection, exclusion, eviction, dismissal, sacking, ousting, eradication
"the purge of dissidents"

--- Note, Abrupt or Violent means either or both. In this case, we use "Abrupt" in the PEACEFUL LAWFUL SENSE.

A purge of criminals in government seems to be totally within Due Process. Justice may even demand it.

a reply to: muzzleflash

She's not an alleged criminal either.
She's not being investigated she's not being charged and Trump thinking he can just go oh hey let's prosecute my political rival just shows again that he does t know # about how the government or the law work. He's as uninformed about the job as a third grader would be.
I'm sorry but really it's just a circus .
Good thing it's almost over.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Personal attack, really?
I was being friendly and commenting on your comment.
Be accountable for your comments and do not attempt to deflect with baseless accusations.