influence might spur a prosecutor’s decision to drop a case.'

There was a rule. It focused on the rights of the prosecution to bail and the protection of the defendant in those cases.

Nobody was discussing these things. They were slam dunks. The rule was already largely written on the first take. After that the "by the leave" phrase was the only thing that was up for discussion.

Making the entire rule about those few words overlooks pretty much the entire rule. It backgrounds it, makes it invisible--but the only reason the few added rules are there is because of the background. Focus on the fish caught, not on the Pacific, then say that the trip really had nothing to do with the ocean, the boat, water, etc. All the preparations involved just focusing on the fish. Seems silly. It's law.

That some thought it important and some not made it an issue that kept resurfacing. That it failed, 7-7, shows that the committee didn't leap right on it with the obvious solution. The language was probably a sop to get the thing out of committee--not the trunk and roots of the huge sequoia.

That this was discussed is a valid point. But saying that it was really the main point is simply delusional. And, like winning a 110-109 basketball game by 1 point, rather assumes that the previous 109 points have absolutely no use and it's only that last point that has any important. Subtract the rest of the game's scoring, and you're left with 1 really awesome winning point.