> Unless they blatantly broke the law in some provable way, probably nothing. It seems to me that they should apply the same burden of proof. If a murderer can

> Unless they blatantly broke the law in some provable way, probably nothing. It seems to me that they should apply the same burden of proof. If a murderer can be convicted on eyewitness evidence, why should the same eyewitness evidence not be sufficient to demonstrate prosecutor corruption? On the other hand I can understand why they have immunity (although this doesn't affect guilt).