• spongebue
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Other than all the evidence and stuff, yeah

      • spongebue
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Yeah. You realize one is used to do the other?

        • artyom@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

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

          • spongebue
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 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
              3
              ·
              1 hour ago

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

              • spongebue
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                46 minutes 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?