Because of Course

Tony Podesta was given immunity, to testify against a Trump campaign guy (Manafort).

As Ace says:
Meanwhile, Mueller has given yet another Hillary Clinton associate immunity, because Hillary Clinton associates are never prosecuted for crimes, only given immunity for them. Only people running against Hillary are prosecuted.
A similar rule: only judges appointed by Clinton or Obama hear Trump-prosecution-related cases.


Assistant Village Idiot said...

There is a double difficulty. Not only does it suggest real bias, it betrays an arrogance that there is not even a need to keep up appearances.

ymarsakar said...

I wrote the line that the Law in the Republic was dead some odd years ago. The counter here was lines from the US Constitution.

The arrogance rested primarily with the people who believed that the Law was some supernatural power equivalent to the god of the bible.

Not even the US Constitution can save the hearts of a corrupt and weak people. This is not a new thing. It's just a human thing.

Even in Waco 1 and Ruby Ridge, they weren't keeping up appearances. The media did damage control and Americans believed it.

douglas said...

I have heard it said that it may be use immunity, which forces testimony, and does not protect from future prosecution necessarily, you just can't use the trial testimony in that prosecution. But I've not heard that confirmed as yet.

E Hines said...

I've always had a hard time with the procedure of granting immunity (forced or voluntary), agreeing plea deals, or other means of "inducing" cooperation in order to get testimony from the person induced.

How could any juror with two neurons to bump together to form a ganglion believe such testimony to be credible? That "witness" is only selling his testimony like a Thursday night hooker; it's the prosecutor who's actually testifying, using the hooker's mouth to say the words.

Eric Hines