General Discussion

brooklynite

(96,882 posts) Thu Sep 16, 2021, 01:06 PM Sep 2021

Would anyone like to share their prosecutorial acumen with us? [View all]

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.

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would anyone like to share their prosecutorial acumen with us? [View all] brooklynite Sep 2021 OP

I hope you like the soothing sound of crickets. Ocelot II Sep 2021 #1

I do indeed. Also the cat purring. brooklynite Sep 2021 #3

And corn growing. n/t ms liberty Sep 2021 #18

Also why SDNY (after saying that Trump indicted very soon MONTHS ago) hasn't acted. flying_wahini Sep 2021 #2

WHEN did SDNY say Trump would be indicted? brooklynite Sep 2021 #6

I'm curious too. Treefrog Sep 2021 #20

It's not SDNY (feds). It's the Manhattan D.A.'s office Tomconroy Sep 2021 #29

Same question applies. No prosecutor says they WILL indict someone until they indict someone. brooklynite Sep 2021 #54

They haven't said they will indict but they have had Tomconroy Sep 2021 #56

Which is because it's the grand jury that does the indicting. Ocelot II Sep 2021 #70

Apparently, you can add Speaker Pelosi and GEN Milley to the chorus. Hugin Sep 2021 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author AZProgressive Sep 2021 #5

Oh please. Is it too much to ask that those who planned sedition to be held accountable by the DOJ? boston bean Sep 2021 #7

You would have to prove they were trying to overthrow the government...maybe a few cases Demsrule86 Sep 2021 #8

Ummmm. Stopping the electoral vote count was the goal. It is why they were there. boston bean Sep 2021 #9

You have to prove it...and only a handful were planners most likely and I expect some of them Demsrule86 Sep 2021 #10

You think this wasn't planned when pence asked Quayle how he could stop it? boston bean Sep 2021 #11

No, I think it was planned but I am not sure it can be proven. I don't think the tweets and Demsrule86 Sep 2021 #36

No? If it were on a wiretap v Twitter still wouldn't be enough? boston bean Sep 2021 #37

You have to remember this...Trump talks like a mob boss. It is my opinion that he never Demsrule86 Sep 2021 #49

There's a reason Trump doesn't do emails, texts or write things down and always couches his StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #62

I'm no legal expert, but I've assumed that the Jan 6 rioters would be convicted first. CaptainTruth Sep 2021 #15

That is not insurrection. Demsrule86 Sep 2021 #38

Stopping the vote count is not insurrection - it's not even, in and of itself, a crime StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #63

That was their stated purpose. Kill Pelosi, stop the vote count, those are actions to lagomorph777 Sep 2021 #80

Which specific laws have been violated, and what specific evidence exists Ocelot II Sep 2021 #12

Sedition. Obstruction. boston bean Sep 2021 #13

Please cite the specific federal statutes and the evidence supporting conviction Ocelot II Sep 2021 #19

I don't believe that there is a specific 'sedition' law, but there is Tomconroy Sep 2021 #23

The DOJ must know them. They need me to tell them? boston bean Sep 2021 #26

The OP asked the question. The point is that prosecution isn't as simple Ocelot II Sep 2021 #28

We're crimes planned and committed? If so, charge them. boston bean Sep 2021 #31

I am stating nothing of the kind. I am stating that any crimes at issue have to be Ocelot II Sep 2021 #41

It's pretty obvious what happened. boston bean Sep 2021 #42

Maybe you don't need to cite a statute, though that was what the OP asked, Ocelot II Sep 2021 #48

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, it's pretty obvious what happened. The Prosecution rests". brooklynite Sep 2021 #55

A conspiracy is only a crime if the conspiracy is furtherance of the commission of something illegal StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #67

I tend to disagree. I think trying to stop the certification is a Tomconroy Sep 2021 #83

Stopping the certification is not a crime StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #86

You're right about that. The obstruction has to be done 'corruptly'. Tomconroy Sep 2021 #87

I agree StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #91

I am surprised how vehemently some are defending the terrorists. lagomorph777 Sep 2021 #81

I agree AZProgressive Sep 2021 #88

When he was running in 2016 he said openly what he did Just_Vote_Dem Sep 2021 #100

Do you consider attempts to explain why prosecuting TFG and the 1/6 insurrectionists Ocelot II Sep 2021 #97

This message was self-deleted by its author AZProgressive Sep 2021 #39

No, it doesn't mean that StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #32

We're crimes committed. Yes or no? boston bean Sep 2021 #34

That's backwards. A crime has been committed if a specific statute Ocelot II Sep 2021 #43

That is the job of DOJ. A crime was committed. Charge it at the very least. There is video. boston bean Sep 2021 #46

I give up. Ocelot II Sep 2021 #50

Thank you. There has to be a law to be charged. boston bean Sep 2021 #53

NO, dammit, I am not stating that at all, as I have said repeatedly in this thread. Ocelot II Sep 2021 #57

A crime hasn't been committed until a jury says it was committed. Ocelot II Sep 2021 #61

For the purpose of this discussion and in the eye of the law, which is what matters, yes. StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #69

Actually, that wasn't what I was stating, but what you said is true StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #65

Thank you. Tired of the meek acceptance of this slow-rolling disaster. lagomorph777 Sep 2021 #79

After enduring a fascist regime for 4 years Mr. Ected Sep 2021 #14

OK, then, maybe E Jean Carroll will take him down. ananda Sep 2021 #16

I think that's probably because a few made predictions based on this tv show or that. Treefrog Sep 2021 #17

I'm not a prosecutor. But the expectation that Тяцмр can be ... Whiskeytide Sep 2021 #21

Well done! StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #40

Bingo! We have a winner. Hamlette Sep 2021 #77

good points. frustrating though. Some of your examples could end up civilly resolved? nt wiggs Sep 2021 #94

That... Zeitghost Sep 2021 #101

Now, this should be an interesting thread. MineralMan Sep 2021 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author AZProgressive Sep 2021 #25

Pelosi was speaking as a politician, not as a prosecutor, Ocelot II Sep 2021 #35

Yes. See my post #28. Ocelot II Sep 2021 #30

Yes, exactly. MineralMan Sep 2021 #45

As far as Russia AZProgressive Sep 2021 #58

Any prosecution is full of pitfalls; they are never, ever a slam-dunk. Ocelot II Sep 2021 #68

... StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #44

Thanks. MineralMan Sep 2021 #51

Are you a prosecutor? kentuck Sep 2021 #24

My wife was. brooklynite Sep 2021 #59

Like I say... kentuck Sep 2021 #82

Go to Empty Wheel website they explain most of it there, in several posts. Bev54 Sep 2021 #27

Apparently watching Matlock is enough to know how to prosecute a case AZSkiffyGeek Sep 2021 #33

And "everybody knows" is admssible evidence StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #47

So is "pretty obvious." Ocelot II Sep 2021 #52

Don't give up. Reason will prevail in the end. MineralMan Sep 2021 #71

I assume everyone remembers that Al Capone was known to be... TreasonousBastard Sep 2021 #60

People express frustration and vent here. I have no problem with that & certainly don't like to see hlthe2b Sep 2021 #64

That does go both ways, however StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #72

THose of us in medicine are expected to unendingly explain things no matter the unwilling audience hlthe2b Sep 2021 #74

Respect goes both ways StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #84

Indeed it DOES. hlthe2b Sep 2021 #85

But it would appear that our efforts to explain the difficulties and complexities Ocelot II Sep 2021 #95

Indeed StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #96

Pretty much the only rational reply here. SunImp Sep 2021 #93

This message was self-deleted by its author AZProgressive Sep 2021 #66

That would never stand up in court StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #73

This message was self-deleted by its author AZProgressive Sep 2021 #75

Well, there was UnderThisLaw Sep 2021 #76

Thank you for your post AZProgressive Sep 2021 #78

Listen here, I may not be able to make sausage Saboburns Sep 2021 #89

What I want to know is how he's escaped consequences for as much as a traffic ticket in 50+ years. Hugin Sep 2021 #90

Is there any benefit derived from indicting someone if you know they will not be found guilty? kentuck Sep 2021 #92

How do you know they won't be found guilty? Just_Vote_Dem Sep 2021 #98

I would rather that they not bring a weak case that they might lose. Ocelot II Sep 2021 #99