• artyom@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Sure but it was NOT used to do the other. That’s why the other doesn’t exist.

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 hours ago

          One is used to do the other in a trial. It wasn’t done because it didn’t have a chance to. In the meantime it was enough to get an indictment from a grand jury - admittedly a low bar but still something.

          • artyom@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 hours ago

            That’s not really how that works. You find the proof and then go to trial…

            • spongebue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Ok, but the in quote from the other reply he asserts that they did develop it. So what specifically are they missing that any other criminal case would have had before trial?