@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika No. Prosecutors never know whether crimes have been committed. They allege, based on lesser or greater evidence. The accused is innocent until proven guilty. Prosecutorial decisions are not restricted to which "crimes that have been committed" to prosecute. You've made that up entirely. It's nowhere in the decision, or my screenshot of it, and it couldn't be, since there is no certain crime before the prosecution. 1/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Where in that screenshot (or elsewhere in the decision) do you think you see that kind of restriction? You don't. You are making it up, imputing it. 2/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika What distinguished malicious prosecution from other prosecution isn't prosecution where "there is no crime". Malicious prosecution is prosecution where the evidence is weaker than it ordinarily would be to prosecute, or perhaps even nonexistent, motivated for some purpose other than evenhanded enforcement of the law. 3/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika The decision protects those prosecutions, because it claims no law from Congress can regulate prosecutorial choices at all, including the motive for those choices, their even-handedness, or their evidentiary basis. 4/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika You and @volkris are intent on adding caveats and limitations to the decision that simply do not exist in its text or its logic. It's one way to cope, I guess. /fin