General Discussion

Hugin

(37,903 posts)

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

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Thu Sep 16, 2021, 01:10 PM

Sep 2021

They have more insights than I would.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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