you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 3 years ago (13 children)

Why didn't she take that fucker down? Damn it! One of the most evil people in the U.S. government. Truly.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 37 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    Because she's extremely careful, and decided she didn't have enough to make a conviction stick.

    Yet.

    Give it time. She's an excellent prosecutor, and she's doing her job extremely well. She's going after the people who are easily the most provably guilty first. This is a broad, far-reaching infestation of corruption and treachery, and I think she and Jack Smith are only getting started.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    If Trump takes the stand and is under oath, he will say anything he can to shift culpability to others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Allowing Trump to take the stand is probably the 2nd worse move his lawyers could make. The first is, naturally, being Trump's lawyer.

    The odds of Trump perjuring himself is so incredibly high.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Yes, but would his credibility (plus the available evidence) be enough to convict someone else, like Graham?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    So many people don’t get this but it’s extremely important. Jack Smith and Fani Willis have been extremely careful and smart in the charges they have brought. They can add more later. And many think they will. But if you are going after the mob, you better make sure your charges are in order and you have a sure fire case or it will come back to bite you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    People kept asking why it was taking so long to bring charges at all - this is why. Yes, the crimes are obvious and some were even committed in public view, but if you're going after high level government officials - if you're going after a former president of the United States - you better make sure you have every last detail in order. For crimes of such magnitude, you can't risk the case getting dismissed or overturned based on a frivolous detail or a minor oversight or a technicality. It has to be iron-clad and air-tight, with every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed.

    Trump isn't some common thief or vandal. He's not just a crime boss or a corrupt politician. He's a history-altering, would-be dictator who tried to stage a coup to overthrow our government. There is no room for error.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    It would be a lot more difficult to indict a sitting congressperson on something like this, particularly since these can be a plausible argument that whatever they were doing could have simply falled under their official duties.

    I think it's a good move to first go after Trump and the people in his inner circle, because if that conspiracy can be proved in court, it's an easier lift to then go after the Senators and Representatives who aided it, because one jury already found the conduct to be illegal (and thus not protected in any official capacity).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    complete missed opportunity, probably had something to do with "resources" and "big fish", which to be fair, if I had to choose, gotta take the head off the snake, I don't know if anything stopping her from filing charges at a later date

  • source
  • parent