re: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.

quote:

---

My reply wasn’t intended to be adversarial. I’d wager you and I land in the same corner on the merits of Trump’s charges. Though I don’t think the severity of the criminal charge is relevant to the core constitutional analysis.

---

I get all that and don’t doubt any of it. Which is why I felt the need to point out that the hypothetical wasn’t actually yours. So I suppose I may have ultimately been responding to the original post with that murder example, via your own response. So the question becomes……why didn’t I just reply to the original comment with the murder example? Answer: I have no idea.

But while I’ve got you on the “severity of the crime” aspect - the very fine art of application of discretion within the bounds of criminal investigation and prosecution is perhaps the most paramount aspect of the entire process. That’s literally where it all begins. The decision to “wield” that great authority and to implement the heavy force and authority that goes along with it. Not to mention the whole process ain’t exactly free or cheap.

As I’m certain you’re aware there are too many factors to possibly think of in a single sitting - both general ones and case specific ones - that may apply in a given matter. Many, many considerations of which a number of significant ones probably come to mind for you almost immediately…..severity of the situation likely being one of them.

Anyhow, much too long story made short, this sure seemed like a tailor made situation meriting restraint in that discretion as opposed to the actual aggressive decision that’s come to pass. Of course that’s a matter of opinion, for which mine counts for exactly zero. But as the days go by
I can’t help but feel like mine is being born out by problems piling up stemming from those discretionary decisions.