Be Careful What You Ask For

"If it's not illegal, it should be" -- Nancy Mace on CNN on the lack of evidence linking President Biden to criminality pic.twitter.com/hD5qVqwYli

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 16, 2023

John Durham's Report:

Conducting this investigation required us to consider U.S. criminal laws, the Constitutional protections our system provides to individuals, and the high burden placed on the government to prove every element of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, the law does not always make a person's bad judgment, even horribly bad judgment, standing alone, a crime. Nor does the law criminalize all unseemly or unethical conduct that political campaigns might undertake for tactical advantage, absent a violation of a particular federal criminal statute. Finally, in almost all cases, the government is required to prove a person's actual criminal intent - not mere negligence or recklessness- before that person's fellow citizens can lawfully find him or her guilty of a crime. The Office's adherence to these principles explains, in numerous instances, why conduct deserving of censure or disciplinary action did not lead the Office to seek criminal charges. 

Nancy Mace doesn't want a world in which her conduct as a politician would be illegal.  She wants a world in which your conduct as a politician is illegal.

Nice work, if you can get it.

I tried, but I can't let this report go without noting these two paragraphs:

Office's investigation was broad and extensive. It included investigative work both domestically and overseas. It entailed obtaining large document productions from businesses, firms, government agencies, universities, political campaigns, internet service providers, telephone companies, and individuals. The Office interviewed hundreds of individuals, many on multiple occasions. The Office conducted the majority of interviews in classified settings; for some interviewees and their counsel security clearances needed to be obtained. The Office conducted interviews in person and via video link, with the vast majority of the latter occurring after the COVID-19 pandemic-related closures began in March 2020. Although a substantial majority of individuals voluntarily cooperated with the Office, some only provided information under a subpoena or grant of immunity. Some individuals who, in our view, had important and relevant information about the topics under investigation refused to be interviewed or otherwise cooperate with the Office. As of April 2023, with two trials completed, the Office has conducted more than 480 interviews; obtained and reviewed more than one million documents consisting of more than six million pages; served more than 190 subpoenas under the auspices of grand juries; executed seven search warrants; obtained five orders for communications records under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d); and made one request to a foreign government under a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.  

Notably, it isn't noted that both trials ended in acquittals.  A few paragraphs later:

There are also reasons why, in examining politically-charged and high-profile issues such as these, the Office must exercise - and has exercised - special care. First, juries can bring strongly held views to the courtroom in criminal trials involving political subject matters, and those views can, in turn, affect the likelihood ofobtaining a conviction, separate and apart from the strength of the actual evidence and despite a court's best efforts to empanel a fair and impartial jury. Second, even when prosecutors believe that they can obtain a conviction, there are some instances in which it may not be advisable to expend government time and resources on a criminal prosecution, particularly where it would create the appearance - even if unfounded - that the government is seeking to criminalize the behavior of political opponents or punish the activities of a specific political party or campaign. At the same time, prosecutors should not shy away from pursuing justifiable cases solely due to the popularity of the defendant or the controversial nature of the government's case.  

A second sotto voce warning to Nancy Mace there; and a tacit statement of excuse for the failure of two criminal trials.  The "court's best effort" is partly the prosecutor's best effort, too.  There is voir dire and a chance to strike jurors which doesn't put either party in control of the jury, but gives them a say in what jury is empaneled.  In the end, as they say in the Texas Lege, you gotta dance with the one what brung you, and that's the case you put before the court. Blaming the jury for not being fair and impartial, even tacitly and at a remove, is a chickenshit move.  Durham could have just stuck to referencing the burden of proving criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt. He is here blaming the juries for his failures to win two cases he probably never should have brought, by the standards set out in this paragraph.

What a whinging loser.