208
Opinion | What Makes Jack Smith’s New Trump Indictment So Smart
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
208 points (95.2% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2149 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, yes. It's harder to make charges stick to people who can afford expensive defense attorneys. Add in the inevitable political ramifications of these particular charges, and you can see why it was critical to take the time to get this right. And they managed it in only 2.5 years. Absolute light speed under the circumstances
Certainly, and I'd much rather that the prosecutors and investigators make an iron-clad case than rush it and bungle something that lets the defense cry foul.
I was just commenting mostly so that we all remember that even though Trump seems to be getting a tiny bit of the comeuppance he deserves, we can't lose track of the fact that there are still two different legal systems. And we need to stay mad about the fact that which justice system a suspect ends up in is based almost entirely on the suspect's skin color and perceived wealth.
Living perpetually in a state of barely contained rage might not be the healthiest choice, but it's certainly one that keeps me motivated to do everything I can to change the existing system.
Yeah, I try to reach first for the easiest, high-impact reforms: End cash bail NOW. End the imprisonment of people who can't pay fines.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/ending-cash-bail/
https://eji.org/projects/fees-and-fines/
If this was "light speed", how long "should" it have taken? 200 years?
There's no "should," there's just how it is. Watergate took this long just to get to impeachment, and there was no federal criminal investigation into Nixon to go along with it:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/complete-watergate-timeline-took-longer-realize
Watergate only ended Nixon's presidential viability because Republicans still had some vague sense of shame at the time. Now they don't. If you want ironclad criminal charges, the investigation requires time.
If there is no standard pace, how can it be light speed? I think you undermine your point by stating this was really fast. To the layperson it absolutely isn't. And apparently to lawyers, it takes as long as it takes.
It's just difficult to find succinct sources that provide that data. Justice Department investigations tend to be years in length even when they don't involve a former President of the United States.
I think the layperson might confuse all criminal investigations with ones prosecuted by the DOJ when most crimes are actually prosecuted by state officials, not the DOJ. DOJ always moves way slower, always has.
Links below are not hard data, but it is statements from people with experience in the process:
"A Federal investigation can last upwards of 5 years due to most Federal Statute of Limitations prohibiting the Government from charging or indicting someone after that time period. It is not unusual to see an indictment that lists dates of offenses 3-5 years prior to an arrest."
https://thetampacriminallawyer.com/how-long-can-a-federal-investigation-last/
https://www.la-criminaldefense.com/why-do-federal-criminal-investigations-take-longer-than-state-investigations