A challenge for Garland critics.

[bigtree]

96. I'm trying to get that across

...court cases can be full of landmines.

That's part of the reason DOJ was so concerned about getting the committee's evidence. They needed to reconcile it with what they'd already gathered, checking for conflicts in testimony, or conflicts with their own evidence.

As you say, that's not to mention whatever the defense will present, or if those witnesses deposed testimony can be corroborated or if it can be challenged in some way. They know what they need to gain convictions. They have experts who have prosecuted similar cases. We have to assume, without any evidence to the contrary, they know when to jump into court and how much evidence they need to assure a conviction. That's why DOJ has such a successful conviction rate. They come correct.