Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Circling Back Around

A primary criticism of the Sussman trial was that DOJ has standards for prosecution, and the prime directive (so to speak) to prosecutors is: don't bring a case to trial you aren't sure you can win. Well, it's more technically stated than that, but you get the idea. Here's an idea of what such a case looks like: That's pretty clear showing of a conspiracy to obstruct the functioning of government, and at the highest levels. Block the joint session, block the succession of Biden for Trump's job. One can only imagine this is not all the evidence DOJ has. I do not imply this is a slam-dunk for the DOJ. But this is what investigation and evaluation produce: a solid case that will stand up in court, and will require some very good lawyering to challenge.

I hope it is well challenged, because I think the adversarial system should work to the fullest extent, and the citizens are better served by it.  I don't presume guilt because the government brings charges or because I don't like the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers.  But for the crowd on Twitter screaming "Why haven't they done anything yet?", this is the answer.  It takes time to build a case; and that time is usually well-spent.

Besides, the people on the jury will be screened for not following these cases obsessively, and for not already having opinions on guilt or innocence (more accurately, guilty or not guilty). So bringing charges right after the event, when memories are fresh in the public mind, or waiting "too long" until people no longer care, is a false dichotomy.  The case is made in court, not in the headlines.  The headlines said OJ Simpson was guilty; the jury hearing the court case said otherwise.  Hell, the headlines in the Sussman trial said it wasn't going well for Sussman.  The jury took 6 hours at the end of two weeks to say: you wasted our time.

What happens in the courtroom is really what counts.And yes, it does take time: Or you ciuld listen to a Florida Governor:
And never say "never."
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. The Thought Criminal7:35 AM

    It makes you wonder who farther up might get seditious conspiracy indictments, from what I understand if Trump were convicted of it he couldn't run for public office again, there are certainly a lot of them who should never be able to, our laws allowing the worst to run for office are too lax.
    Glenn Kirschner said something interesting about the possibility that some of them might be liable to be indicted for treason, considering what happened Jan. 6th was war against the United States, though I would expect that's something that the Roberts Court would probably not sustain. The definition of treason in the Constitution seems to be dangerously lax to me, considering what dangers have sprung up.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)