Would anyone like to share their prosecutorial acumen with us?

[brooklynite]

We’ve been inundated by posts ranting about the fact that Trump hasn’t been indicted (if not already convicted and jailed) and the 1/6 protestor haven’t all been charged with treason and sedition. Some have gone to far to opine that this is clearly an intentional choice by AG Garland (and by extension President Biden).

So would someone like to lay out the easily prosecuted case? That means a specific statute that has been violated, and the proveable evidence that will convince a jury.

I’m breathless with anticipation.

[Ocelot II]

1. I hope you like the soothing sound of crickets.

[brooklynite]

3. I do indeed. Also the cat purring.

[ms liberty]

18. And corn growing. n/t

[flying_wahini]

2. Also why SDNY (after saying that Trump indicted very soon MONTHS ago) hasn't acted.

Anyone? Bueller???

[brooklynite]

6. WHEN did SDNY say Trump would be indicted?

Date.
Name.
Source.

[Treefrog]

20. I'm curious too.

I never heard anyone say he’d be indicted except people right here.

[Tomconroy]

29. It's not SDNY (feds). It's the Manhattan D.A.'s office

(think Law and Order). The state tax and insurance stuff.

[brooklynite]

54. Same question applies. No prosecutor says they WILL indict someone until they indict someone.

[Tomconroy]

56. They haven't said they will indict but they have had

A grand jury going for awhile. We'll see.

[Ocelot II]

70. Which is because it's the grand jury that does the indicting.

Prosecutors might announce that they are presenting a case to a grand jury (or they might not), but they won't announce in advance that someone is being indicted until the grand jury presents the bill of indictment.

[Hugin]

4. Apparently, you can add Speaker Pelosi and GEN Milley to the chorus.

They have more insights than I would.

[boston bean]

7. Oh please. Is it too much to ask that those who planned sedition to be held accountable by the DOJ?

The DOJ makes the charges.

It’s obvious laws have been violated. They need to get to charging the persons responsible.

Must be nice to just not give a hoot about losing our democracy on Jan 6th is bad enough. by not having criminals planning sedition charged is as bad as the sedition act itself.

Good for your blasé acceptance of it all.

[Demsrule86]

8. You would have to prove they were trying to overthrow the government...maybe a few cases

could be proven but the vast majority will end up being charged with trespass, assault, and vandalism. It is a very difficult thing to prove sedition or insurrection. I don't recall anyone ever being found guilty of sedition.

[boston bean]

9. Ummmm. Stopping the electoral vote count was the goal. It is why they were there.

We are talking about the planners of it. Not Joe Schmoe who walked in and then out only.

[Demsrule86]

10. You have to prove it...and only a handful were planners most likely and I expect some of them

will face such charges but the vast majority will not.

[boston bean]

11. You think this wasn't planned when pence asked Quayle how he could stop it?

Trumps speech, his tweets his public words. And lord who the fuck else didn’t have a plan to try to stop the count? Come on. For real?

[Demsrule86]

36. No, I think it was planned but I am not sure it can be proven. I don't think the tweets and

his words are enough.

[boston bean]

37. No? If it were on a wiretap v Twitter still wouldn't be enough?

[Demsrule86]

49. You have to remember this...Trump talks like a mob boss. It is my opinion that he never

said explicitly the word insurrection and certainly not on tape...he couched his words...as has been said, his people knew what he meant...his saying the election was stolen is not enough.

[StarfishSaver]

62. There's a reason Trump doesn't do emails, texts or write things down and always couches his

instructions and threats in language that could be read as innocuous.

Like most mob bosses and other longtime criminals, he has become very adept at insulating himself and camouflaging his own involvement in his various crimes.

[CaptainTruth]

15. I'm no legal expert, but I've assumed that the Jan 6 rioters would be convicted first.

Due process is a process. It always seemed logical to me that step 1 in the prosecution would be to find Jan 6 rioters guilty. Those cases are in process right now. Find some of them guilty of sedition (or of behaviour that constitutes sedition), which establishes that there was, in fact, sedition which meets the legal definition of the word. Then, once it's been legally established that there was sedition, go after seditious conspiracy charges for anyone involved in the planning.

It doesn't make sense to me to pursue seditious conspiracy charges (for planners) before you've proven, in court, with a verdict, that sedition took place. Again, I'm not an expert, it just seems logical that prosecutors would approach the case(s) in that manner.

For reference:

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384|]

[Demsrule86]

38. That is not insurrection.

[StarfishSaver]

63. Stopping the vote count is not insurrection - it's not even, in and of itself, a crime

Democratic House Members have, on several occasions, tried to stop the vote count.

A prosecutor can't just say that Trump tried to stop the vote count and therefore, he's guilty of a crime. Stopping the counting of votes was his motive, but it wasn't, standing alone, a crime. Prosecutors need to prove the criminal activity he engaged in in order to stop the vote count.

[lagomorph777]

80. That was their stated purpose. Kill Pelosi, stop the vote count, those are actions to

overthrow the Government.

[Ocelot II]

12. Which specific laws have been violated, and what specific evidence exists

that would meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? That's what prosecutors look for before charging a case, and that was the OP's question.

[boston bean]

13. Sedition. Obstruction.

[Ocelot II]

19. Please cite the specific federal statutes and the evidence supporting conviction

beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least that would be presented to a grand jury, with respect to each potential defendant. That's what the prosecutors have to do.

[Tomconroy]

23. I don't believe that there is a specific 'sedition' law, but there is

A 'seditious conspiracy' law that is cited above and if anything applies to Trump it would be that one.
"Prevent hinder or delay the execution of any law...." like the certification of the electoral vote. A conspiracy is an agreement among individuals to accomplish a malevolent goal. The parties don't all have to be aware of one another and only one person has to take an active step to forward the conspiracy. If Trump can be proven to share with the violent actors the goal of stopping the electoral certification, instead of just protesting the result of the election, things begin to get interesting.

[boston bean]

26. The DOJ must know them. They need me to tell them?

Crimes were committed they planned to prevent the counting of the electoral votes.

That was the crime.

Why the hell would anyone demand of me what statutes? DOJ needs to make the charges. That is what they are there for.

So, because a lay person can’t cite a statute means there was no crime committed in plain fucking sight?

[Ocelot II]

28. The OP asked the question. The point is that prosecution isn't as simple

as may seem from the "outside" because prosecutors have to cite violations of specific federal statutes and be prepared to prove every element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the presumed intent of the defendant. They have to be able to present witness testimony and other evidence that is admissible according to the Federal Rules of Evidence (not all evidence is admissible in a trial). And they have to be able to anticipate all possible defenses. Putting a federal prosecution together is a complex, time-consuming process in any event, and if the defendant is a former president they have to be damn sure they have dotted every i and crossed every t. The fact that Trump hasn't been arrested or charged yet is not at all surprising considering the very real obstacles facing prosecutors.

[boston bean]

31. We're crimes planned and committed? If so, charge them.

You seem to be stating there were no crimes.

[Ocelot II]

41. I am stating nothing of the kind. I am stating that any crimes at issue have to be

identified and defined in accordance with specific federal statutes, and that prosecutors aren't going to charge anybody unless they are reasonably certain they can prove all elements of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

[boston bean]

42. It's pretty obvious what happened.

I don’t need to cite a statute to understand a conspiracy to stop the electoral vote from being counted to subvert our democracy.

It was done in plain sight.

[Ocelot II]

48. Maybe you don't need to cite a statute, though that was what the OP asked,

but federal prosecutors do if they want to charge, let alone convict, anybody.

[brooklynite]

55. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, it's pretty obvious what happened. The Prosecution rests".

Should be a fun trial.

[StarfishSaver]

67. A conspiracy is only a crime if the conspiracy is furtherance of the commission of something illegal

And what constitutes a conspiracy is carefully detailed in the law - if, as Ocelot has tried to explain to you, all of the elements of a conspiracy are not met, there is no crime.

And furthermore, the conspiracy must be in furtherance of an illegal activity in order to be a crime. You and I can conspire to walk to Baskin Robbins to buy an ice cream cone. That's a conspiracy, but it's not a crime - unless it's illegal to buy an ice cream cone at Baskin Robbins.

And, as I said earlier, trying to stop the vote count is not ipso facto a crime.

[Tomconroy]

83. I tend to disagree. I think trying to stop the certification is a

Crime. It's being prosecuted now under an obstruction charge which isn't exactly a great fit. The defense being raised is: I wasn't there to obstruct the vote to certify. I was just there to protest the election.
Here's a little article on the charge the government is using against the Jan 6 defendants.

https://rollinsandchan.com/federal-charges-for-capitol-breach/

[StarfishSaver]

86. Stopping the certification is not a crime

In fact, stopping the certification is permitted by law. And if, for example, through a peaceful protest, citizens were able to convince enough Members and Senators to vote to reject the certification, that would have been perfectly legal.

The crime is in the fact that people tried to stop the certification, not through legal or peaceful means, but through intimidation as part of an attempt to overthrow the government and used violent means in order to achieve that goal.

It may sound like a distinction without a difference, but the difference is very important - and that's what makes this a very complicated case that prosecutors must piece together with the utmost care.

[Tomconroy]

87. You're right about that. The obstruction has to be done 'corruptly'.

But as to that 'seditious conspiracy' charge I think conspiring to stop the certification would be enough. In your example urging congress people to vote a certain way is a different thing than halting the process.

[StarfishSaver]

91. I agree

But seditious conspiracy is not easy to prove. And it is the type of charge that has to be put together bit by bit.

i've long suspected that one of the reasons the prosecutors are starting with the lowest guys on the totem pole is that they are building a case for the existence of a conspiracy - and in order to do that, they have to first prove that these people at the bottom believed they were part of something bigger and that something was to overthrow the government. That has to be done very methodically and can't be done by starting at the top and working down, but must be done by starting at the bottom and working slowly and meticulously up.

[lagomorph777]

81. I am surprised how vehemently some are defending the terrorists.

Very disappointing.

I guess we can see why our elected officials are dragging their heels. Even the forum where one expects the strongest defense of democracy seems to have a substantial minority of folks who don't see the coup attempt as an existential threat.

If this reflects public opinion at large, we are doomed.

[AZProgressive]

88. I agree

I feel like I’m overreacting over an attempted coup but at least I have medication for PTSD symptoms.

The only thing I believe is Trump gets away with crimes because he is rich and powerful so I’m sticking with that.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

100. When he was running in 2016 he said openly what he did

He greases everyone's palms. He mentioned politicians, other government folk, business people-money always talks

[Ocelot II]

97. Do you consider attempts to explain why prosecuting TFG and the 1/6 insurrectionists

will be a complex, slow and difficult process rather than an instant slam-dunk to be "defending the terrorists"? Do you believe the rule of law requiring careful investigation and the gathering of evidence sufficient to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt applies to all criminal prosecutions, even of detestable people, or would you prefer that we just skip the trial part altogether?

[StarfishSaver]

32. No, it doesn't mean that

But it does mean that lay people who admittedly don't know the law and can't site specific statues but nevertheless repeatedly accuse Biden administration lawyers of not properly enforcing those laws and statutes shouldn't be surprised If they aren't taking seriously by lawyers who do know the law and have tried to explain it to them to no avail.

[boston bean]

34. We're crimes committed. Yes or no?

If there were a law applies. If not, there was no crime. Is that what you are stating?

[Ocelot II]

43. That's backwards. A crime has been committed if a specific statute

can be identified and if evidence exists that fits within each element of that statutory crime.

[boston bean]

46. That is the job of DOJ. A crime was committed. Charge it at the very least. There is video.

There are actions. And whatever else they could gain with subpoenas.

[Ocelot II]

50. I give up.

[boston bean]

53. Thank you. There has to be a law to be charged.

What you are stating is there are no laws to charge this conspiracy.

Therefore,we are SOL. I refuse to believe they cannot charge sedition conspiracy.

[Ocelot II]

57. NO, dammit, I am not stating that at all, as I have said repeatedly in this thread.

But I'll try one more time: There has to be evidence supporting a charge under a specific statute. Prosecutors can charge seditious conspiracy under that specific statute, for example, IF they believe they have admissible evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally committed every element of the crime. They won't charge anything just because "it's obvious" or "everybody knows."

[Ocelot II]

61. A crime hasn't been committed until a jury says it was committed.

[StarfishSaver]

69. For the purpose of this discussion and in the eye of the law, which is what matters, yes.

[StarfishSaver]

65. Actually, that wasn't what I was stating, but what you said is true

In order for a crime to have been committed, the alleged perpetrator has to violate a specific law. Violating the law is what makes it a crime. If there is no law prohibiting the behavior he or she engaged in, there is no crime.

[lagomorph777]

79. Thank you. Tired of the meek acceptance of this slow-rolling disaster.

[Mr. Ected]

14. After enduring a fascist regime for 4 years

Could you cut some of us some slack ON A DEMOCRATIC-THEMED DISCUSSION WEBSITE to pine for justice?

Yeah, we get it, the acts that we witnessed, discussed and reviewed with other like-minded people over the years need to be given due process, but in the meantime, this is exactly the forum to lament the lack of progress.

And like it or not, if we are not able to stem whatever it is we are currently being subjected to, you'll quietly join the rest of us in wondering why the law failed us when we needed it most.

[ananda]

16. OK, then, maybe E Jean Carroll will take him down.

Personally, I think there's more than enough evidence
in all sorts of videos to take him down for sedition
and sexual predation.

But hey, I'm just a person who can see and hear what's
in front of me.

[Treefrog]

17. I think that's probably because a few made predictions based on this tv show or that.

“He’s going down!”

So now they have to blame it on someone.

[Whiskeytide]

21. I'm not a prosecutor. But the expectation that Тяцмр can be ...

… prosecuted for a crime is quite complicated. Much of what he did is completely unprecedented. There aren’t laws on the books that clearly prohibit his known actions. The call to the GA Sec of State is a good example. He said he needed to find 9,000 votes. He didn’t say “you need to manufacture 9,000 votes for me so I can steal this election”. Was his implication pretty clear? I think so. But an argument can be made that he just wanted a recount to validate his belief that he got 9,000 more votes than they recorded for him.

His call to the Ukrainian president was similarly vague. He never actually said “I want you to fabricate an investigation into the Biden family or I’m not going to give you this aid I’m holding in limbo”. He sure as hell implied that, I think. And I believe the Ukrainians took it that way. But he never said it quite like that.

His remarks at the Jan 6 rally were more of the same. He clearly used inciting language. But “you have to fight for your country of you won’t have one”, and “we need to march over to Congress and stop the steal” are common metaphors. He didn’t say “go to the Capitol and take Nancy Pelosi hostage” or “you need to go hang Mike Pence”. Clearly he should have expected them to do exactly that, given the circumstances, but he can pretty easily claim he didn’t expect them to go that far.

For whatever reason - intentionally or by pure dumb luck -, Тяцмр seems to have been consistently right up on the line but never actually crossing it with his words. That matters to a lawyer trying to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Especially when you’re going after a target like an ex-Prez.

Many on our side realize that Тяцмр is a bloated, narcissistic asshole with an egomaniacal drive to serve himself above all others. While that’s 100% true, it’s not actually a prosecutable crime.

If they find clear, verifiable evidence of something more than what we know now, they should have at him. But without that, it’s a huge risk to bring charges. JMHO, fully knowing it won’t be popular here.

[StarfishSaver]

40. Well done!

[Hamlette]

77. Bingo! We have a winner.

great response.

[wiggs]

94. good points. frustrating though. Some of your examples could end up civilly resolved? nt

[Zeitghost]

101. That...

Sums it up nicely.

[MineralMan]

22. Now, this should be an interesting thread.

Let's see if anyone comes up with anything.

ETA: OK, I've read the entire thread so far. Nobody has named any specific crime, nor provided any specific evidence.

"Everyone knows" is not evidence that can be presented in court.

When a prosecutor takes a case to court, it has to have highly detailed charges with specific evidence to support those charges. Witnesses will be needed. Documentation is required of acts done by the accused party that specifically violate the specific law under which charges are filed.

Even TV courtroom dramas depict that presentation of charges and evidence in court.

It is the specificity that is in short supply here on DU. Frankly, we don't have all that much evidentiary information. We have suppositions, beliefs, speculative proposals, but little else. We say a lot of things that would be destroyed instantly by any reasonable defense attorney.

All of that is why it will take a long time before any criminal case against Donald J. Trump to be brought. There are professional prosecutors at the DOJ who are looking for the evidence needed to charge him with specific crimes. That's not as easy as it is to say, "We all know he did this or that." We might think we know it, and we're probably right, but none of us could prove any of it in criminal court.

We need to be very patient, because any charges will be long in coming.

[Ocelot II]

35. Pelosi was speaking as a politician, not as a prosecutor,

and probably rhetorically rather than legally, and although she's a brilliant politician she's not a lawyer. I have never suggested there isn't enough evidence to prosecute TFG, or that he might be innocent, but only that the process is complicated and difficult and won't happen overnight like we'd like.

[Ocelot II]

30. Yes. See my post #28.

[MineralMan]

45. Yes, exactly.

Actually charging and trying anyone is difficult. When that person is a former POTUS, it gets far, far more difficult, actually. Did Trump talk to Putin? Why, yes, he did. Presidents often talk privately with other heads of state. What was their conversation? We don't know. It was a private conversation. Are there records of it? Maybe, but maybe not.

Further, no former President has ever been charged with a crime committed in office in the entire history of our nation. That's because the only real recourse against a President is impeachment the House and conviction by the Senate. Both of those have not occurred. No conviction in the Senate has taken place.

Personally, I think it is very, very unlikely that he will ever be charged with any crime connected with his presidency. Instead, it is far more likely that he would be charged with crimes not associated with his term in office. There is considerable question about whether anything official he did as President could be charged or end in a conviction. Presidents have enormous leeway when it comes to their official acts.

Now, he could be charged with tax evasion, either state or federal. He could be charged with other crimes, like extortion, too, that have nothing to do with his official duties as President. Those charges would have a much higher chance of success, I believe.

Again: No former President of the United States has ever been charged with any crime associated with official duties as President. I doubt that is going to change.

[AZProgressive]

58. As far as Russia

Last edited Thu Sep 16, 2021, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Everyone around Trump went to jail or were even pardoned by Trump himself for that one. Even no name Alex Van Der Zwann got a pardon from Trump.

Downplaying Russia as all heads of state make calls to Putin is a different story. They actually stashed those calls on the same secret server the Ukraine phone call was on.

This is common for Trump. People all around him go to prison except for him.

If Trump is innocent then we should abolish the PIC or end the drug war or something because there are people in prison for less than what Trump did and that pisses me off.

Edit: Deleting all my posts in this thread except the ones relating to Russia.

FWIW

Mueller report says "thorough FBI investigation" might have implicated Trump in criminal conspiracy

https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/mueller-report-show-thorough-fbi-investigation-might-have-implicated-trump-in-criminal-conspiracy_partner/

[Ocelot II]

68. Any prosecution is full of pitfalls; they are never, ever a slam-dunk.

Personally, I think TFG is guilty of a whole lot of things that he did before, during and even after his presidency, but what I think (and what other DUers think) plus a couple of bucks will get me a venti latte at Starbucks. Prosecuting him for all the crap he pulled as president will be a whole 'nother can of worms, and busting him on tax evasion, as with Al Capone, might be the easiest way to get his fat orange ass behind bars.

[StarfishSaver]

44. ...

[MineralMan]

51. Thanks.

[kentuck]

24. Are you a prosecutor?

You are our resident expert.

[brooklynite]

59. My wife was.

I also have the benefit of history. Look at how long any particularly complex criminal cases has actually taken.

[kentuck]

82. Like I say...

You are our resident expert.

I do believe that we are living in times that are unlike any other in our history and we have to take that into account.

[Bev54]

27. Go to Empty Wheel website they explain most of it there, in several posts.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

33. Apparently watching Matlock is enough to know how to prosecute a case

I've read that here.

[StarfishSaver]

47. And "everybody knows" is admssible evidence

[Ocelot II]

52. So is "pretty obvious."

I give up.

[MineralMan]

71. Don't give up. Reason will prevail in the end.

Trump left the White House and Biden moved in. There is that. Despite TFG's whining and insisting, he is no longer President. At this point, he has zero chance of regaining that office, I'm quite certain.

Will he ever be charged? I don't know, but I doubt very much he will be charged with anything having to do with being President. Other charges might be brought, of course, if there is enough will to do so.

For me, his exit from the White House was the goal. That goal has been achieved and his influence diminishes with each day that passes. Soon, his only supporters will be patent nutcases spouting Q nonsense. They have no influence, really, on the course of politics, frankly.

We had the worst possible President. He is no longer in office, nor does he have any authority over anything at this point. That is a very good thing. We won, and we can keep winning if we set our minds on that and look forward rather than back.

[TreasonousBastard]

60. I assume everyone remembers that Al Capone was known to be...

guilty of many crimes, up to and including political bribery and murder.

But the only thing they could nail him on was taxes.

Why would it be any easier to indict a president and his minions for more nebulous crimes?

[hlthe2b]

64. People express frustration and vent here. I have no problem with that & certainly don't like to see

large groups of DUers ridiculed for it. Educating is one thing and could be very useful to explain to those without the legal expertise what the issues truly are and to help tamp down unrealistic expectations. But this is just one big mocking call-out and I think it does little else.

[StarfishSaver]

72. That does go both ways, however

People express frustration, yes. But when legal experts take the time to try to explain how this works - not easy, because this is very complicated and difficult to break down into terms and concepts that a layperson will understand - and are constantly argued with, told they're wrong about the law, and mocked for "thinking you know more than we do" patience wears thin,

I, for one, don't expect people to fully understand all of this - any more than I understand medicine or how a car engine works. But for some reason, many people here think that the law is different than any other area of expertise and that they know as much about it as the experts and that their opinion is just as value as legal experts' knowledge and experience.

I don't go on medical websites and argue with doctors or challenge what they tell me about medicine, or claim that my opinion is just as valid as theirs nor do I go onto automotive sites and bicker with mechanics about cars, insisting that I know as much as they do because I listen to "Car Talk."

[hlthe2b]

74. THose of us in medicine are expected to unendingly explain things no matter the unwilling audience

and the level of argument and disrespect directed to us. Why should it be different with arcane issues of criminal or constitutional law for those here with that background?

Many post their frustrations here just to vent their spleens, true. But some are here to learn. We should remember that.

And having come from an extended generational family of two judges, three former prosecutors, one former defense lawyer and an academic legal professor, I grew up hearing the debates at nearly every family gathering, something I never tired of (though my non-lawyer father certainly did!). Most never have that opportunity. This can be a forum for them to do so.

[StarfishSaver]

84. Respect goes both ways

[hlthe2b]

85. Indeed it DOES.

[Ocelot II]

95. But it would appear that our efforts to explain the difficulties and complexities

of federal criminal prosecutions are, at least to some, tantamount to "defending the terrorists." Since "it's obvious" that TFG and his 1/6 berserkers broke the law, any attempt to offer reasons based on legal procedures for why they aren't all in prison yet falls on deaf ears. And that's damn frustrating, too.

I want them prosecuted as much as anybody else, but I also understand from my own experiences why it hasn't happened yet, and why it might not happen exactly as we might hope.

[StarfishSaver]

96. Indeed

[SunImp]

93. Pretty much the only rational reply here.

[StarfishSaver]

73. That would never stand up in court

And not because the justice system is effed up.

[UnderThisLaw]

76. Well, there was

a man, I believe his name was “Mueller” or something, who if my further memory is correct, had some experience with prosecuting federal crimes. This Mueller or whatever headed an investigation which concluded that Trump had possibly obstructed justices ten times in office and once before assuming office. I think he might have had specific statutes in mind when he reached this conclusion, but you can ask him. Unfortunately, this initial evidence wasn’t pursued, perhaps due to the misguided notion that Republicans in Congress would be interested in whether or not a President from their party was a crook

[AZProgressive]

78. Thank you for your post

I knew Trump obstructed justice several times related to the Russia probe.

[Saboburns]

89. Listen here, I may not be able to make sausage

But I sure as shit can recognize it when it's sitting on my plate.

Know what I mean?

[Hugin]

90. What I want to know is how he's escaped consequences for as much as a traffic ticket in 50+ years.

Last edited Fri Sep 17, 2021, 08:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Pretty damning of the Justice System.

[kentuck]

92. Is there any benefit derived from indicting someone if you know they will not be found guilty?

Is there anything positive about charging someone with a crime, only to see them walk?

[Just_Vote_Dem]

98. How do you know they won't be found guilty?

Do you have a Magic 8 ball?

And while you're at it-more importantly-do you have next week's lottery numbers? Thanks in advance

[Ocelot II]

99. I would rather that they not bring a weak case that they might lose.

And that's why it's taking so long; it's hard to put together any federal criminal prosecution and prosecuting TFG will be especially challenging - and an acquittal of TFG could be worse than not charging him at all. If all they can nail him on is tax evasion like Al Capone, which seems from what I've seen to be at least possible, that's better than going after him for a sedition conspiracy and failing to convict for lack of sufficient admissible evidence.