Jack Smith slammed Donald Trump for pardoning the people who beat police officers on January 6th, and the Republican senator who tried to take him down humiliated himself on national television.ContentsTRUMP’S SENATOR HUMILIATES HIMSELF ATTACKING JACK SMITHTRUMP’S BRAND-NEW WEBSITE FACT-CHECKS HIM ON DAY ONETRUMP’S OWN ADVISER ADMITS THE MIDTERMS WILL BE BRUTALOBAMA RETURNS TO THE […]
Yeah. You realize one is used to do the other?
Sure but it was NOT used to do the other. That’s why the other doesn’t exist.
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.
That’s not really how that works. You find the proof and then go to trial…
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?
…develop what? Are we both talking about perjury?
I was saying that evidence is used to develop proof.