>>3591175
>>3591229
>>3591086
I'm posting this as a carry over from last bread on the Hatch Act exemptions, which are codified in law -- there are three categories that are exempted. The Hatch Act applies to all executive branch EMPLOYEES except:
-
POTUS;
-
VPOTUS; and
-
A member of the uniformed service
(Note: District of Columbia local gov't is also exempt but not worth getting into that in any detail)
Here's a good document to peruse on how the Hatch Act applies to President Trump's re-election:
https://osc.gov/Resources/Candidate%20Trump%20Hatch%20Act%20Guidance%203-5-2018.pdf
It would definitely appear to be inappropriate to arrest a bunch of people right before the election.
It may also be illegal. It's all about intent and using INTENDING to use OFFICIAL AUTHORITY to AFFECT an ELECTION. If you are Attorney General Sessions and you say to your fellow executive branch EMPLOYEES at DOJ and FBI, "Everyone, we're making arrests on 10/25," and there is evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that you chose that date because you INTENDED to AFFECT the the midterm ELECTION, then you would likely be in violation of the Hatch Act, unless you are POTUS, VPOTUS, or a member of the uniformed service.
Let's take the indictments as an example. Why would Sessions unseal a bunch of indictments at this point in time (pre-midterms)? A reasonable person would conclude he INTENDED to AFFECT the midterm ELECTIONS.
By doing this, AG Sessions would expose any and all indictments to potentially successful motions to dismiss (that the prosecutions were based on a violation of law, namely the Hatch Act). Then, the people who were indicted, if they got their indictments dismissed because of the timing of the unsealing, COULD NEVER BE indicted again for the same offense or offenses for which they were indicted. See U.S. Const., Amend V (double jeopardy clause).
Pre-indictment arrests would be subject to a different analysis (arrest does not equal indictment), but again, I see nothing in the Hatch Act statute that exempts applicability to Sessions, Comey, or Wray (or anyone but the enumerated exceptions, which are POTUS, VPOTUS, and uniformed service members). If an arrest is predicated on unlawful conduct, that arrest itself would likely be thrown out and all evidence used in any probable cause determination could be deemed fruit of the poisonous tree (depending on the specific facts).
Why walk into this tangled web? Why not just wait until right after the midterms?
Comey "was allowed" to reopen the Crooked Hillary investigation, or more specifically, was not prosecuted for the letter that he sent to Congress, because the facts on their face did not show that Comey had any INTENT to affect the election. He cleared Crooked Hillary, if I recall correctly, less than a week later. The objective facts there didn't add up to any Hatch Act violation (Comey covered himself well).
The question about the timing of ARRESTS is interesting. Based on the Hatch Act, I don't THINK any PUBLIC arrests could happen unless there were an imminent danger of 1) loss of life; 2) loss of evidence. To be clear, this last paragraph is more speculation than analysis.