Comey’s logic is that clear violation of a statute is not enough. You must also have prior successful prosecutions under that part of that statute. If congress and a past president say gross negligence is against the law and a felony by enacting a law that says that, it’s not enough. There must also be successful previous prosecutions, or so Comey would have us believe.
That begs the question of how a new law would ever get prosecuted. It also begs the question of whether prosecutors now have some sort of prosecutorial-nullification power. That is, they can repeal laws they do not feel like enforcing by simply initially ignoring them, then later claiming they don’t have to enforce them because they did not initially.
This reminds me of the “Mikey likes it” Life cereal commercial. Congress passes a law. The president signs it. Then the congress and president anxiously watch from the edges of their seats to see whether Mikey the prosecutor likes it. Because if Mikey doesn’t like it, there will be no Life cereal purchased and no gross negligence prosecuted.
Such efforts at prosecutorial nullification should be considered cause for firing the prosecutors in question, including those who are unfirable civil servants and the FBI director himself, who has a term during which he can only be fired for cause. So fire him.
Share this post