Bravo, true in every part. My only addendum would be, ‘If you come for the king, you’d best be damned sure you kill the king’ and can get it upheld on appeal. Taking Trump to trial and have him get off would do more damage than not having tried him at all.
Bravo, true in every part. My only addendum would be, ‘If you come for the king, you’d best be damned sure you kill the king’ and can get it upheld on appeal. Taking Trump to trial and have him get off would do more damage than not having tried him at all.
Tough call on this one for me for a few reasons. Lots of downside in either a swing-and-a-miss or getting caught looking and called out with the bat still behind our shoulder. My personal preference is if we're gonna' go down, let's go down swingin'. But I'll admit that's about equal parts reason and sentiment.
There's trying him and there's first investigating him. They MUST investigate, whether it results in an indictment or not. All the legal pundits I follow see no signs DOJ is investigating.
I have no doubt he is featuring in the DoJ investigations of 1/6 but they will not say that, nor should they just to appease the frustrations of the public. That’s where Comey went badly wrong, he had no need to say anything until he was sure there was new evidence against HRC but he gave in to fear of leaks and public pressure & announced the ‘re-opening’ of an investigation 10 days before an election. There are good reasons why DoJ should not discuss these things in public. But the evidence of a criminal offence will have to be well beyond a reasonable doubt for DoJ to indict Trump and again for good reason. The country is a tinder box, he must be held to account if the evidence is there but they can’t just take a flyer and hope they get a sympathetic jury.
Comey really, really screwed that whole thing up by opening his yap, whether that was well intended or not. And I get it about why DOJ may seem idle due to the relative silence. Hoping they just learned a lesson from Comey and are actually getting their ducks very quietly in a row. I'm with Sandy in that all I want, and have wanted, is a 1st rate legitimate investigation and let the chips fall where they may. But if they don't fall at all, I'm really going to be beyond pissed off!!
Of course they don't say anything about investigations, but, as legal pundits like Preet Bharara, Joyce Vance and Dan Goldman have pointed out, no one close to Trump is being subpoenaed. That would get out if it were happening.
I'm not looking for an indictment, just an investigation.
The Jan 6 committee is getting evidence from Jared, Ivanka, Miller, plus what it has already got from Meadows & countless others who we don’t know about. It awaits the release of e mails from John Eastman. If I was DoJ investigator, I’d want every scrap of evidence available in the public domain before I decided who to subpoena & what questions I want to ask about it. They are not going to operate on our time scale & whatever happens in the mid-terms even if the House flips, it will not affect the DoJ. That remains ongoing until a new president is in office.
Bravo, true in every part. My only addendum would be, ‘If you come for the king, you’d best be damned sure you kill the king’ and can get it upheld on appeal. Taking Trump to trial and have him get off would do more damage than not having tried him at all.
Tough call on this one for me for a few reasons. Lots of downside in either a swing-and-a-miss or getting caught looking and called out with the bat still behind our shoulder. My personal preference is if we're gonna' go down, let's go down swingin'. But I'll admit that's about equal parts reason and sentiment.
Agree let's go down swingin'. What do we get if we don't?
When the stakes are this high, there's risk in every move, no matter what.
I'm game. Batter! Batter! Batter!
There's trying him and there's first investigating him. They MUST investigate, whether it results in an indictment or not. All the legal pundits I follow see no signs DOJ is investigating.
They make a few noises here and there, but they don't seem too serious about it, do they? At least not at this point. Hope I'm wrong.
I have no doubt he is featuring in the DoJ investigations of 1/6 but they will not say that, nor should they just to appease the frustrations of the public. That’s where Comey went badly wrong, he had no need to say anything until he was sure there was new evidence against HRC but he gave in to fear of leaks and public pressure & announced the ‘re-opening’ of an investigation 10 days before an election. There are good reasons why DoJ should not discuss these things in public. But the evidence of a criminal offence will have to be well beyond a reasonable doubt for DoJ to indict Trump and again for good reason. The country is a tinder box, he must be held to account if the evidence is there but they can’t just take a flyer and hope they get a sympathetic jury.
Comey really, really screwed that whole thing up by opening his yap, whether that was well intended or not. And I get it about why DOJ may seem idle due to the relative silence. Hoping they just learned a lesson from Comey and are actually getting their ducks very quietly in a row. I'm with Sandy in that all I want, and have wanted, is a 1st rate legitimate investigation and let the chips fall where they may. But if they don't fall at all, I'm really going to be beyond pissed off!!
Of course they don't say anything about investigations, but, as legal pundits like Preet Bharara, Joyce Vance and Dan Goldman have pointed out, no one close to Trump is being subpoenaed. That would get out if it were happening.
I'm not looking for an indictment, just an investigation.
The Jan 6 committee is getting evidence from Jared, Ivanka, Miller, plus what it has already got from Meadows & countless others who we don’t know about. It awaits the release of e mails from John Eastman. If I was DoJ investigator, I’d want every scrap of evidence available in the public domain before I decided who to subpoena & what questions I want to ask about it. They are not going to operate on our time scale & whatever happens in the mid-terms even if the House flips, it will not affect the DoJ. That remains ongoing until a new president is in office.