If you want some of the legal details of the Trump J6 indictment …
… you can find them here, in a post by Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection.
ADDENDUM: Please also see this post of Ace’s.
And if you want an idea about what the left is saying, there’s always, “Why Jack Smith’s January 6th Trump Indictment Is So Smart,” an opinion piece in The New York Times.
So, it appears that the DoJ does know who the co-conspirators are.
Why are they not also being indicted?
People seem to be remarking that the Judge is pretty awful. So this is shaping up to be a completely lawless show trial followed by a lawless conviction. And in the end all this will change no minds on either side. In fact it will almost certainly only further worsen public division, infuriating anyone who has any respect for justice and rule of law and the very principals that our Republic has been founded on. This is the greatest subversion of the law in my lifetime.
But hey, the Orange Man is bad.
tom:
Because they want to pressure them to become witnesses against Trump in exchange for not being indicted.
At least one of the charges potentially carries the death penalty. I guess that’d be one way to absolutely garauntee that Trump will never again be president.
thought crime, is the worst kind of crime, eastman and clark, should have just
kissed the wrinkly posterior of the shambling pretender
Imagine an ex-president not as rich as Trump having to face all this b.s.Or, any ordinary citizen, for that matter.
LegalInsurrection shadow bans comments.
Never link to LegalInsurrection
Is there a good roadmap/flowchart outlining how this plays out and what the stakes are? Assuming that is knowable at this time?
The LI and AoS mostly address the case and its merits or lack thereof.
Hmmm…Ace actually uses the word “tyranny,” & says “we don’t abide” that.
Sounds “insurrectiony” to me.
About time we took that seriously.
Maybe they will just draw lots for the unknown conspirators
More likely we’ll know Trump confidant. They get DJT, and watched a video on this Kangaroo Court that they could get a conviction on him kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, they will go after hundreds then thousands on anyone out to stop them.
its that invisible six foot rabbit from jimmy stewarts tale, if the circumstances were not so dire, it would be humorous,
What need have they of witnesses?
It’s not like they need to have proof of anything. And besides it is much more instructive for the plebes if it is more than obvious the convictions are bogus and no one will do anything about it.
its that invisible six foot rabbit from jimmy stewarts tale…
–miguel cervantes
That’s “Harvey” (1950). As far as I’m concerned, every American ought to see “Harvey” at least once.
–“Harvey Official Trailer #1 – James Stewart Movie (1950) HD”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWmc_XRpa9U
It’s another thoughtful, older film which jars one into realizing how polarized and unpleasant today’s landscape is for film and everything else.
@ huxley > “As far as I’m concerned, every American ought to see “Harvey” at least once.”
More often than that.
Alternate it with “Arsenic and Old Lace.”
” you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku…”
I assume haiku is Japanese for BS?
no haiku never allowed for this much mendacity and stupidity, thats what the samurai swords were for,
Harvey is a gold mine of subtle, gentle humor, masterfully played by every character. Nuggets are strewn everywhere, some of them hysterical.
The DC judge and jury will eat this up. Then the DC Circuit was packed by Obama, who is really behind this. He and Holder packed the DoJ with lefty lawyers. Trump will have to go to the Supremes and that will stoke the fires on them. I just hope Trump has his own security. I don’t trust the Secret Service.
just winging it,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernard-kerik-donald-trump-records-may-not-have-been-reviewed-by-special-counsel/
@ miguel > it’s CBS, of course, so after pointing out that Kerik’s records tend toward showing that Trump genuinely believed the election had been fraudulent to some extent (which is certainly was, if not exactly the way Powell and others asserted at the time), which is exculpatory of the indictment charges, the post then spends equal column inches highlighting the lawfare against the Republicans — which I presume to represent at least some of the charges that Frederick thinks should be turned the other way against Democrats, if there were an impartial DOJ.