Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

This is precisely the confusion people have.

Yes, this was reported from an anonymous source in the press. Anonymous sources reported in the press is not admissible evidence in court.

(Talking about the reporting that Trump watched the coverage of the insurrection on T.V.)

1/

To bring charges (or convict) prosecutors need evidence that is admissible in court.

Of course, the committee is not a law enforcement body and can't bring charges, but they've said they are coordinating with other agencies to avoid duplication of effort.

Anyway . . .

2/

People see reporting in the newspaper and say, "See there is evidence! Why haven't these people been charged yet!"

Or, "ho, hum, I read about that in the newspaper, so I know he's guilty, so what the heck is taking so long?"

3/

What's taking so long is that we don't convict people in the press, and prosecutors don't charge people based on hearsay (anonymous sources in newspapers).

I assume that all this evidence will be handed over to the DOJ. (I don't know what the DOJ is doing, and either do you)

4/

But if you missed it, here is the last statement from the DOJ:

https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield/status/1477328853991260163

You mean we need, like, evidentiary support?"

https://twitter.com/mpersandy/status/1477717148805971969

…

I have a funny law school evidence story. (I told it before, but I like it, so here it is again.)

I introduced my then 12-year old stepson to my law school evidence professor . . .

. .. later, he said, "Did you notice he gave you a funny look when you told me that he teaches evidence."

I hadn't noticed. "Why did he do that?"

"Because you said he teaches evidence! You can't teach evidence! Either it's evidence, or it isn't!"

Sigh . . .

. . . to think I wasted a whole semester in a course entitled "evidence."

I'll add this here (even though I digressed with a story)

One reason people don't see these as signs is they're not paying attention.

Also: They don't think such an investigation is necessary.

"He committed crimes on TV! So just arrest him now!"

https://mobile.twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1478008905615691777

Every crime has multiple elements, and prosecutors need to prove EACH element beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, including an element showing state of mind.

"Rule of law hasn't always been followed—look at how minorities have often been treated under the law—so why is this DOJ being ethical in Trump's case" isn't the compelling argument that a lot of people think it is.

I love it. Thank you.

The criminal justice system doesn't always work as it should is not a good argument for trampling rule of law in a high-profile case.

In fact, trampling rule of law in a high-profile case is a good way to destroy rule of law.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PrinceJvstin/status/1478017540936851465

Here you go. Another person in my mentions explaining why rule of law should be ignored in Trump's case.