There are examples of people lynched after trials (Leo Frank in Atlanta in 1913). Generally, it was an act of riot which occurred before any legal process could take place and at times undertaken before an individual had been taken into custody. Prior to about 1925, there were masses of lynchings out west in places where the infrastructure of law was skeletal.

NB, the 1st incarnation of the KKK evaporated around 1877. Lynching was at its most common in 1892 / 93, when there was no Klan. The KKK was refounded in 1915 and with some changes in membership screens the membership exploded during the period running from 1919 to 1924 (then rapidly imploded). There was no corresponding surge in lynchings. The frequency of lynching actually declined by about 2/3 during the period running from 1920 to 1935.

Of what?

The federal government is going after him and his estranged wife on tax charges. They’re contending the two of them concealed $70,000 a year in off-the-books income over a period of six years. And I am Marie of Roumania.

https://www.y2mate.com/youtube-mp3/Pm2LL4SflPQ
I did an mp3 converted download using y2mate so as to listen as I walked, and recommend it — they asked me to share. And they earned this note.

I can’t help but imagine an emotional To Kill a Mockingbird in reverse over the Chauvin case. He’s not innocent. He’s likely guilty of other things, BUT he’s NOT guilty of murder.
This show trial is a state sponsored lynching. Not so different in its evil process as Democratic KKK trials that got Blacks lynched 70-80-100 years ago.
Somebody who is not guilty is accused of a crime they didn’t commit, and is lynched without a fair trial.

Will you, the jury, join the lynch mob? Will you lynch this man who is not guilty? The state wants you to, the city wants you to, the police chief and top officers want you to. Because he’s the scapegoat. Lynch him, and the police won’t do much more real reform, the real problems won’t be solved.
Lynch him, they all say.

But he’s not guilty, I say.
What do you say?

Um, guess again.

But you’re correct regarding “Biden” ‘s foolishness, though I wonder how much of it is simply theater.

“Biden” does, after all, have to show how much “he” is “anti-Russia” (just like the “we’ll have more flexibility” administration for which he served as VPOTUS)—as opposed to, you see, OrangeManBad, who was Putin’s Poodle(TM) or whatever.

There’s also the Ukraine angle for “Biden” and I wouldn’t be surprised if he were eager to have any and all evidence evemntually blown up….

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/joe-biden%E2%80%99s-ukraine-policy-repeat-george-w-bush-georgia-182036

Money graf:

Yet the Biden administration seems intent to blunder onward. There is now the risk of two unfortunate outcomes from this approach: one bad, and one horrendous. The most likely outcome is a repetition of the Georgia episode, in which a country Washington encouraged to take a confrontational stand against Russia acts on an exaggerated assumption of U.S. backing, suffers a decisive military defeat and is humiliated, while U.S. leaders, for all their verbal posturing, prudently refrain from going to war. The United States would come away looking both feckless and irresponsible.

But one alternative outcome is even worse. There is a danger that the Biden administration concludes that it must honor the implicit commitment to Ukraine’s security and actually adopts a military response to an outbreak of fighting between Russian and Ukrainian forces. It would be the ultimate folly, since it could culminate in nuclear war, but given the intense level of hostility toward Moscow evident in the administration and much of Washington’s political elite, it is a possibility that can’t be ruled out.