Can someone explain the point of an "unindicted co-conspirator"

[Miguelito Loveless]

Why not just indict him?

[mucifer]

1. Because he's above the law. The

Supreme Court is ruling this by refusing to hear it until the last minute. So Arizona is probably waiting to hear the results on that which they don’t have to make until effing JUNE.

[claudette]

2. I take it to mean

that the investigation is still on-going and the the co-conspirator might be indicted with more evidence. I'm not sure.

[lastlib]

3. That's one possibility; there is another.

An unindicted co-conspirator might be helping the prosecution, in exchange for not facing criminal liability.

[claudette]

4. Yes, that's another possibility

But, I can't imagine Dumpy helping the prosecution!

[lastlib]

5. Well, in fairness, he HAS been somewhat helpful to them....

(For one, he's giving them job security....)

He let himself be recorded by Raffensberger, basically making the case for fraud. And he has pretty much confessed in the documents case. He preens around, says he did everything he's charged with, and says it wasn't a crime; he's effing around, he's gonna find out--eventually--that it was.

[werdna]

6. There is not sufficient evidence to indict -

- "Five others were named as unindicted co-conspirators. The designation means these five were believed to be involved in plans to present an alternate slate of presidential electors, but were not charged with a crime for their activities."

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/25/arizona-fake-electors-unindicted-co-conspirators/73419445007/

[dsc]

7. There are several reasons one can be an unindicted coconspirator

in Nixon's case they felt he couldn't be indicted as a sitting President. In Trump's they may wish to avoid the delays. Some of the unindicted may be cooperating.