HTacianas
Well-Known Member
- Jul 9, 2018
- 8,516
- 9,012
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
You linked to an article that referenced one case. I asked what you could possibly presnt that would chancge the conviction. And what do I get? Gee, that was only case. Yearh, one which you brought up. Is that your MO? To go through them one by one?
The prosecutors had evidence that those arrested were guilty as charged. That would have been available in court. It's not possible for the prosecutor to say we have evidence he is guilty and not making that evidence available.
They were all guilty, charged or not, by being there. You saw the scenes before people accessed the building. It was vicious. It was violent. You'd have to be a raving lunatic to think 'Hey, let's go take a look. Surely that's ok.' And you have heard evidence from Capitol law enforcement that they were outnumbered and to create a situation that would result in a further escalation of violence within the building would be a ridiculous tactical decision. Grant these people some intelligence, for heaven's sake.
So someone opening a door rather than having it broken down and trying to usher people to an exit is the right course of action and doesn't reflect on anyones guilt or innocence. Else what? Draw your weapon and start shooting? You guys were up in arms when that woman was shot and that was deemed a necessity. The mob was only a door or two away from getting to the government officials. What in heaven's name did you want? A bloodbath?
So no, someone opening doors and following people around make zero difference to the charges brought and convictions recorded. You guys really need to get a grip on the reality of what happened instead of shamefully making excuses for a mob that was literally trying to overthrow an election.
It seems we have two problems here. The first one is you didn't read the story I linked to. It describes alleged misconduct on the part of the government during their investigation. That misconduct didn't likely limit itself to a single defendant. Government misconduct during an investigation is grounds for charges to be dismissed. Google William Ayers.
The second problem we have is that you don't understand what the argument is. You said:
"The prosecutors had evidence that those arrested were guilty as charged. That would have been available in court. It's not possible for the prosecutor to say we have evidence he is guilty and not making that evidence available."
That is wrong. The prosecutor not only has to turn over evidence he plans to use in court, but must turn over all evidence, even if it is exculpatory evidence. The government may be, and in all likelihood is, withholding exculpatory evidence. We do not know because no one has been allowed to see it until just the last few days.
Upvote
0