General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: In the face of clear evidence of a coup, why in the world are we not indicting 45 and accomplices? [View all]NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 27, 2021, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)
... may not be deemed "clear evidence" in a courtroom.
You can't go into court and say, "This guy looks and sounds guilty, so shouldn't that be enough?"
Building a solid legal case involves research, witnesses, depositions, establishing timelines, etc. - and then all of that info has to be organized into a cohesive presentation that a judge/jury can easily understand.
And it's not enough to know your own case in-and-out - you have to anticipate the other side's case, and have the facts to dispute it at your fingertips.
I've spent over thirty years in courtrooms as a court reporter, and I've seen what many would think of as a slam-dunk case fail because I's weren't dotted and T's weren't crossed.
I don't know why some people think that if Garland and the DOJ aren't sending out daily press releases about what they're doing, the automatic assumption is that they're doing nothing.