Grand juries will indict a ham sandwich. The prosecution is Trump’s DOJ, they 100% work for the administration. They also have a history of lying and violating the law when presenting to grand juries (where there is no defense allowed).
You have absolutely no idea how any of this works, so please do educate yourself before speaking.
I’m genuinely surprised still bc they couldn’t indict someone who threw a ham sandwich. DC must no longer be bothered by the sight of the national guard…
The prosecution presents the “evidence” to the grand jury. There is no defense against that, and the prosecution can present the “evidence” however they’d like.
They could claim that he shot twelve small children before taking out a pocket knife and slashing apart the reflecting pool, and the grand jury would just have to accept that.
They are not getting a trial or a defense or having all evidence presented and accounted for.
This is a political stunt, nothing more. Once he goes to court, this will get either tossed out, or if it goes to trial and an actual defense lawyer gets a hold of it, the case is over. There is no case. This is 100% optics.
As the person above you said, you need to educate yourself before speaking. Your ignorance is what fascists prey on.
well I mean yeah, they probably used something like the Chewbacca defense legal tactic. There’s no irrefutable defense against just making shit up until it sounds bad enough.
The democracy has been a joke for some time but now that they know they can do whatever with out consequences it’s pretty much done.
In a jury trial, the Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation. As a Chewbacca defense distracts and misleads, it is an example of a red herring. It is also an example of an irrelevant conclusion, a type of informal fallacy in which one making an argument fails to address the issue in question.[1][2] Often an opposing counsel can legally object to such arguments by declaring them irrelevant, character evidence, or argumentative.
The name “Chewbacca defense” comes from “Chef Aid”, an episode of the American animated series South Park.[3] The episode, which premiered on October 7, 1998, satirizes the O. J. Simpson murder trial, particularly attorney Johnnie Cochran’s closing argument for the defense. In the episode, a fictionalized version of Cochran bases his argument on a false premise about the 1983 film Return of the Jedi. He asks the jury why a Wookiee like Chewbacca would want to live on Endor with the much smaller Ewoks when “it does not make sense”. He argues that if Chewbacca living on Endor does not make sense—and if even mentioning Chewbacca in the case does not make sense—then the jury must acquit.
The grand jury that indicted him clearly think there’s enough evidence.
Trump and the administration have nothing to do with this.
Grand juries will indict a ham sandwich. The prosecution is Trump’s DOJ, they 100% work for the administration. They also have a history of lying and violating the law when presenting to grand juries (where there is no defense allowed).
You have absolutely no idea how any of this works, so please do educate yourself before speaking.
I’m genuinely surprised still bc they couldn’t indict someone who threw a ham sandwich. DC must no longer be bothered by the sight of the national guard…
The prosecution didn’t indict him, the grand jury did.
The prosecution presents the “evidence” to the grand jury. There is no defense against that, and the prosecution can present the “evidence” however they’d like.
They could claim that he shot twelve small children before taking out a pocket knife and slashing apart the reflecting pool, and the grand jury would just have to accept that.
They are not getting a trial or a defense or having all evidence presented and accounted for.
This is a political stunt, nothing more. Once he goes to court, this will get either tossed out, or if it goes to trial and an actual defense lawyer gets a hold of it, the case is over. There is no case. This is 100% optics.
As the person above you said, you need to educate yourself before speaking. Your ignorance is what fascists prey on.
Again - The prosecution didn’t indict him, the grand jury did.
well I mean yeah, they probably used something like the Chewbacca defense legal tactic. There’s no irrefutable defense against just making shit up until it sounds bad enough.
The democracy has been a joke for some time but now that they know they can do whatever with out consequences it’s pretty much done.