. . . people think "there is evidence of a crime, so why isn't there an indictment?"
You may even see civil lawyers who say this. You can file a civil lawsuit before you have all the evidence because of how discovery works.
Criminal trials are different . . .
. . . for one thing, the burden of proof is different. A prosecutor has a heavy burden.
Investigators gather as much evidence as they can and then prosecutors consider whether they can prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a civil matter (or a congressional matter) we can draw an inference from the person's silence. In other words, we can presume guilt.
In a criminal trial, a jury is instructed not to draw any inferences about the defendant's silence. . .
This is why defense attorneys tell their clients to SHUT UP. Just don't talk. If you are arrested, SHUT UP.
In a civil matter, you can plead the fifth, but everyone can draw an inference, so it would be really stupid because you'll invite a criminal investigation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One way to counter the anti-Merrick Garland rage is with facts (here is how complex investigations work, here's the evidence we have of what is happening).
Another way perhaps is to ask: If a president removed an AG because of a pressure campaign by political partisans. . .
. . . who are demanding specific prosecutions, wouldn't that itself be politicizing the DOJ, which is exactly what Barr and Trump tried to do, which we all agreed was destructive to democracy?
Garland continually answers his critics by saying "They will follow the facts."
2/
One of the pillars of democracy is an independent prosecutor. In an autocracy, the autocrat decides. In an era of mob rule (i.e. lynchings) the mob decides.
As our democracy is set up, the prosecutor decides.
3/
Here is what people are having a hard time accepting:
The Republicans are knowingly and actively shielding and supporting liars and lawbreakers because they want to destroy. The lies and lawbreaking are intended to destroy.
If anyone made these promises, that person lied⤵️
1/
It seems to me that this is based on a theory that goes like this: We had a lovely democracy and then along came the lawbreaking Republicans. Because they are breaking laws, we can solve the problem through the criminal justice system.
2/
Two things are happening right now on left media:
(1) People misunderstand the lies and lawbreaking on the right.
(2) People tell their own lies (what I've been calling rage-inducing simplifications) based on a faulty view of history and the nature of the problem.
3/
This is the problem. People think that the problem of right-wing extremism can be "fixed" and they're waiting for that to happen and demanding that someone fix the problem.
Now people believe that criminal indictments will "fix" the problem.
1/
If you think that criminal indictments will fix the problem and make the threat of right-wing extremism go away, of course you're frustrated and impatient.
All I can figure is that it comes from a very weird idea of history, that goes like this . . .
2/
At some point in our recent history, we had a lovely democracy, and then up rose a cabal of criminals.
Now, we just need to put those criminal in jail and the
problem will be fixed.
When was this lovely democracy? Before 1954?
Nope. We had racial segregation.
3/
This is an example of a rage-inducing simplification.
🔹It ignores ongoing investigations (actually pretends they're are not happening)
🔹It assumes unrealistic timelines
🔹It ignores the reality of how investigations occur
Mostly, it mindlessly repeats what other people say.
In a video that I link to here⤵️ @TimothyDSnyder talks about how mindlessly repeating Internet "triggers" endangers democracy by, basically, turning us into mindless repeaters of trigger phrases.
"Rule of law" doesn't mean that each transgression is punished. Quite the contrary. Due process and constitutional protections mean not every person who commits a crime gets prosecuted.
Just striving for precision here.
You meant: "Trump broke laws so I want him prosecuted."
What DOJ investigators need to do is put on blinders, follow the evidence where it leads (as they have said many times they are doing; see ⤵️for example) and ignore cries from partisans to prosecute political leaders.
The committee's mission statement includes working with other "entities" to avoid duplication of efforts."
It's also clear from their statement that they're looking beyond Jan. 6 to tie together what happened (meaning all parts of the conspiracy.) january6th.house.gov/about
It's a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and an ongoing coverup.