Signed by Nancy D. Cook AUSA

She filed a criminal information against him. Which usually means
a. She didn't run this by a grand jury.
b. She expected him to plead guilty.
c. She didn't expect a media backlash.

What is also surprising is the rest of the criminal information is sealed.
She doesn't strike me as very bright. She is going to have to convince 12 men and woman chosen from across the entire state of Idaho that they believe unanimously that he didn't have the right to shoot that bear. He was only charged with this and there is no lesser charge. Although there seems like more than enough evidence to charge him, I don't think someone thought this one through to the end game. The rambling of the blogger that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction and state cops are going to arrest federal agents and prosecutors is close to insane. It is the supremacy clause of the constitution. I love the bill of rights in the constitution, but I also recognize that if that document, if to be viewed as law, also has the supremacy clause in it too. I also can see his point about the federal shooting, but I don’t see how he correlates the two separate incidents.