[rayiner]

> I think you've assumed the conclusion here. One could equally say that if one party becomes overrepresented by people with higher education, that party will become overrepresented in any administrative position

I think that’s true! It’s another reason why the federal workforce has come to be dominated by one party. But both point to the same result.

> I don't think many people will look at Comey's prosecution and see it as the clear-headed and honest pursuit of justice

It’s not. It’s tit-for-tat: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-..., https://www.npr.org/2025/08/21/g-s1-84246/civil-fraud-penalt....

I think it’s terrible to go fishing for a technical crimes with the goal of prosecuting a particular person. The criminal laws are written broadly and cannot withstand prosecutors who fit legal pieces together like a puzzle to come up with a legal theory for a prosecution (https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theo...).

[benmmurphy]

Comey was also involved in the Flynn setup. If Comey is convicted of procedural crimes it will be difficult to feel sorry for him when he used those or similar statutes to pursue other people.

[hypeatei]

> It’s not. It’s tit-for-tat:

So you're admitting that Trump is weaponizing the DOJ to get revenge on his opponents? How does a NY court and jury of his peers finding Trump guilty of a felony justify that?

  The facts of the case have been covered at length (including by us in a detailed chronology), and the grand jury’s indictment and accompanying Statement of Facts speak for themselves. The prosecution has said that this case is not just about an affair and hush money payments, neither of which are illegal. Rather, the DA has explained the case concerns an attempt by Trump to interfere in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election outcome.[0]


  The hush money arrangement with Daniels occurred just after the Access Hollywood scandal, where Trump boasted about committing sexual assaults, and was finalized on October 27, 2016, twelve days before the election. As described in the Statement of Facts, Trump initially directed Cohen to delay the payments to Daniels until after the election, “because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.” However, “with pressure mounting and the election approaching,” Trump ultimately agreed to the payoff.[0]

0: https://www.justsecurity.org/93916/guide-manhattan-trump-tri...

[rayiner]

Identify the law Trump was charged under that made it illegal to “interfere in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.”

[hypeatei]

He doesn't have to be charged with them, the intention is what matters, but regardless the three points brought up were (as shown in your own lawfaremedia link):

- Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)

- New York Election Law § 17-152

- violations of federal, local, and state tax law

[rayiner]

Your quote above from the article you linked says:

> [T]he DA has explained the case concerns an attempt by Trump to interfere in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election outcome.

If the DA himself says that Trump’s crime is interfering with the 2016 election, why doesn’t the DA have to charge the law that covers that, and prove every required element of the crime under that law?

[hypeatei]

Because that's how the law in NY is written? I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here, to be honest. The case played out in the legal system, a judge ruled it should go forward, and a jury convicted Trump on these charges.

  A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.[0]

0: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

[rayiner]

So everything is fine as long as you can fit the facts into “how the law is written?”

If so, why are you complaining about the Comey prosecution? 18 USC 1001 is extremely broadly written: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

> (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully… (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation

It basically makes any lie about “a matter within the jurisdiction … government” into a felony. No surprise that even a blue state grand jury indicted Comey for this.