Loretta Lynch could file federal charges against Trump for High Treason NOW!

[onenote]

55. You say you're a former law student. You should ask for your money back

Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2017, 09:20 AM - Edit history (1)

First, at most the AG can work with the US Attorney's office to determine whether to commence a prosecution, which will generally require a grand jury.

Second, the written principles guiding federal prosecutions require that there be a determination of probable cause -- and in this instance, given the Constitutional limitations on treason charges -- no prosecution for treason could be brought.

Third, the case you presume to have brought wouldn't start at the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS' original jurisdiction is very limited.

Fourth, in a couple of posts you reference a court case in which a district court judge reversed the outcome of an state legislative election after a lengthy trial involving the presentation of evidence of election fraud (including admissions by several parties directly involved in the fraud) as well as evidence establishing to the court's satisfaction that disallowing the fraudulent votes (absentee ballots) would have resulted in the election of the candidate who lost because of the fraudulent votes. The facts of that case are not remotely similar to the situation currently confronting us and the suggestion that it stands as precedent for the same remedy in a case involving a presidential election (which unlike state legislative elections are governed by the US Constitution and, also, are not resolved based on who gets a plurality of the popular vote) is baseless.

Fifth, its unimaginable that someone could complete law school and think that a decision by the Supreme Court to deny certiorari (which is what happened in the Marks v. Stinson case referenced above) constitutes a decision to "uphold" the result in such case. As the Supreme Court, expressing some frustration with such claims, explained: 'Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated. The one thing that can be said with certainty about the Court's denial of [a petition for certiorari]is that it does not remotely imply approval or disapproval of what was said by the [court below]."

Finally, you somehow think that if your plan, and I use that term as loosely as its ever been used in history, works, Hillary Clinton will be president. Again, Constitution. Unlike the Marks v. Stinson case, there is a Constitutional provision that addresses what happens if the president elect can't take office on January 20. And it doesn't provide for the losing candidate to take over.