Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Statute of limitations on Trump over Stormy Daniels [View all]bigtree
(86,016 posts)28. why didn't CY Vance indict?
...I don't think they had more than Cohen's word to go on, and Vance obviously didn't believe that was enough to indict. I'd guess that neither did Garland when he looked at the case in '21.
Barb McQuade says: "It may be that they have been able to uncover objective evidence that corroborates it...that makes him feel this is a stronger case than they did back when Alvin Bragg first came to office."
And they now have the cooperation of Pecker, granted immunity by DOJ. Also, Weisselberg, facing big jail time, and is said in reports to have falsified the Daniels hush money payment as a legal expense paid to Michael Cohen, may have talked.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
34 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I did not say otherwise. But it IS TRUE that the Federal Statute of Limitations has run.
hlthe2b
Jan 2023
#4
I get that, but it is relevant that the Federal SOL has run. To the extent Trump's lawyers are ever
hlthe2b
Jan 2023
#7
I agree. The problem is the "not charging a sitting President" is a DOJ policy based on a poorly
hlthe2b
Jan 2023
#12
The discussion was on revisiting the policy with the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel for new analysis.
hlthe2b
Jan 2023
#19