But wait - there's more

[NanceGreggs]

I know we're all anxious to see Trump indicted , which has led many of us to say that all the evidence needed to do so has already been revealed by the Jan-6 hearings.

That may be so - but wait, there's more. And letting the "more" be exposed is an opportunity that should be given full rein.

I'm a court reporter, and have been on many cases involving more than one counsel on the prosecution's side. I've never seen a lawyer present only part of the evidence against a defendant while his co-counsel interrupts and says, "I think the jury has heard enough."

Let the jury (the American people) hear it all. Let the Jan-6 Committee explain every minute detail of what happened and who was involved. Give the Jan-6 Committee the time needed to lay out - in no uncertain terms - how an insurrection against our democracy was planned, orchestrated, and ultimately incited.

We know that these hearings are already having an impact - so as anxious as we are to see the end of the movie, let's not call for a rush to the exits before the final reel gets played.

[calimary]

1. Wise counsel.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Not to mention, people are watching! A bigger audience at each successive hearing!

And it really is must-see TV!

[rubbersole]

4. Even faux viewers are watching.

Not sure if it's sinking in...but it adds to the repub's growing mountain of insanity. We'll know when they're begging Mittens and his dancing horse elevator to lead them back to the promised land.

[Rhiannon12866]

6. And the hearings are far from over, we're hearing there are even more people coming forward

And you're right, more viewers are tuning in - with all the revelations which make the news, it's getting harder to hide from the truth - especially since it's the Republicans who are testifying!

[Emile]

3. I can hardly wait for the next hearing!

The committee has been showing an awesome presentation and it's only going to get better!

[malaise]

5. THIS

Rec

[Novara]

7. I don't see anyone calling for a "rush to the exists"

I see the "he should have been in prison last year" folks as simply impatient.

Your point is valid, and one I've been making for some time: that when ALL the evidence is presented to us, we will know all the facts and we can demand justice based on comprehensive facts. I believe the J6 committee understands this point fully.

Their presentation to the public is also a presentation to the DOJ. They are smart. They know that when the public sees the evidence we will demand that the DOJ take action. They are using us as a vehicle for justice. We say, "If they saw what we saw the DOJ would be issuing indictments." Many legal experts have already said the evidence so far has shown multiple, prosecutable crimes.

The impatients will say "what's the harm in indicting him now?" if there is already evidence of multiple crimes. Prosecutors don't indict on half the evidence when it's clear there is more evidence that can build a more solid case or that can bring additional charges. We need to have ALL the evidence in order to build the most solid case most likely to end in conviction and to charge the motherfucker with EVERY crime he committed.

I'd love to have seen him in prison already, like most everyone else. But I'd rather see him prosecuted for EVERYTHING in a winnable case, even if it takes more time, than to rush into prosecuting a case that may fall apart.

[gab13by13]

8. I just have a couple of questions,

1. Are we sure that Merrick Garland is OK with indicting a former president? Are we sure he is OK with indicting a former Chief of Staff?

We have already seen Garland decline to prosecute a former Chief of Staff, is it because he believes in the sanctity of executive privilege between a president and his Chief of Staff?

2. The "ducks in a row" argument doesn't cut it for the failure to indict Trump, "individual one."
The "ducks in a row" argument doesn't cut it for failure to indict Trump for 10 obstruction of justice crimes.
The "ducks in a row" argument doesn't cut it for not prosecuting Trump for witness tampering.

3. If we are to believe that DOJ has been investigating Trump all along, DOJ has many more people, many more resources, much more clout than the select committee, then we must believe that DOJ has a lot more evidence than we have seen from the select committee.

I do not need to see more evidence that DOJ must have in its possession if it has been investigating Trump all along.

4. I can wait for the trial to see all of the evidence that DOJ has accumulated.

5. When would a Donald Trump trial be scheduled? 2024? 2025? Trump has once again requested a delay to turn over documents in the Letitia James trial. Let us not forget what Donald Trump and his traitor friends #1 strategy is, to delay and obstruct.

6. The select committee is considering sending a criminal referral to DOJ for Donald Trump, is it making a mistake?

[gab13by13]

9. Is Fani Willis making a big mistake?

She has created a special grand jury designed to gather evidence. Is that a mistake? The special grand jury has no power to indict Donald Trump, just to give a report, and then the Fulton County DA can decide whether to indict.

[NanceGreggs]

10. The Georgia case ...

... is much, much narrower than the Jan-6 case, and is specific to the events that took place in that state; i.e. Trump's direct interference in attempting to have Biden's win in Georgia overturned.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

11. Waiting for more at january6th.house.gov

I'm hoping that some of the "more" is going to spark even deeper investigations into sources of money and propaganda. Noisy varmints like Gaetz and Jacketoff Gym Jordan are puppets; I want some puppeteers.

https://january6th.house.gov