General Discussion

qazplm135

(7,629 posts)

47. Both states and the feds have speedy trial

Thu Jan 16, 2025, 01:45 AM

Jan 16

Rules.

And they have processes for bringing charges, whether an information or an indictment.

You follow those two, and guess what, you've satisfied due process.

DOJ goes a little farther. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#:~:text=9%2D27.200%20%2D%20Initiating%20and%20Declining,prosecution%20without%20taking%20other%20action.

But ultimately nothing in the DOJ requires that due process means anything other than reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed and a reasonable belief that a conviction is possible.

It doesn't require super duper surety. It doesn't require that everyone is cool with the prosecution. It doesn't require anything extra than any other case.

And by no means does it require 4 years+ for trial to start.

Speedy trial wasn't implicated. So the only thing that matters for due process I linked for you. Nothing in those principles (which isn't even law, isn't all required by law or due process and is more conservative than most other forums of prosecution) required four plus years

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Those who are vehemently criticising Merrick Garland [View all] canetoad Jan 15 OP

Personally, I think Garland and Biden -- who could have told MG to up his game -- knew this would be a chitshow. Silent Type Jan 15 #1

Trump would not have been able to run iemanja Jan 15 #4

Maybe. Again, Biden could have picked up phone or fired him. We spent too much time thinking we Silent Type Jan 15 #5

I'm not thinking anything other than what Smith just reported. iemanja Jan 15 #6

He could have run! The law only allowed congress to prevent him from being seated. LeftInTX Jan 15 #9

Let's put it this way iemanja Jan 15 #10

Indictments sure didn't matter. Disgusting as it is, running from behind plexiglass might have helped him more. Silent Type Jan 15 #13

I seriously doubt it iemanja Jan 15 #19

I mean qazplm135 Jan 15 #22

He wasn't president during the last four years iemanja Jan 15 #25

Literally day one qazplm135 Jan 15 #31

He would have been out on appeal. It usually takes a year after a search warrant to bring a federal indictment. LeftInTX Jan 15 #16

You seem highly invested in coming up with scenarios iemanja Jan 15 #17

Post removed Post removed Jan 15 #23

Jack Smith is iemanja Jan 15 #26

He's a prosecutor. He can't put Trump in prison!!! LeftInTX Jan 15 #27

Just the opposite. Jack Smith's report was as much a wimp out as Mueller's. Silent Type Jan 15 #38

That's not true qazplm135 Jan 15 #20

Please read my responses below iemanja Jan 15 #21

The post I replied to qazplm135 Jan 15 #24

Not sit on my hands for two years iemanja Jan 15 #2

How about simply faster and with less timidity? Frasier Balzov Jan 15 #3

Well, at least nobody is posting their own version of the law. Beastly Boy Jan 15 #7

I mean "the law" didn't have much to do qazplm135 Jan 15 #18

This is what I mean. Of course the law had much to do with how quickly the prosecution occurred! Beastly Boy Jan 15 #33

Lol qazplm135 Jan 15 #41

At times due process requires more than four years. There is no time frame on due process. Beastly Boy Jan 15 #44

There literally is a time frame for due process qazplm135 Jan 15 #45

Ok, I will give you an opportunity to show off your legal background. Beastly Boy Jan 15 #46

Both states and the feds have speedy trial qazplm135 Jan 16 #47

Speedy trial is the right of the defendant, not an imposition on the prosecution. Curious how a seasoned prosecutor Beastly Boy Jan 16 #48

Lol qazplm135 Jan 16 #49

This message was self-deleted by its author LeftInTX Jan 15 #8

Most people have no clue he's Jewish. To think that is the reason he is criticized on DU is ludicrous and unthinking NoRethugFriends Jan 15 #14

That's a lot of hyperbole qazplm135 Jan 15 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author arthritisR_US Jan 15 #28

Garland could have appointed a Special Counsel to investigate Trump immediately upon his confirmation... LudwigPastorius Jan 15 #11

It's not hard qazplm135 Jan 15 #12

He could have released the full Mueller report. intheflow Jan 15 #34

Garland is the worst of the worst of AGs awesomerwb1 Jan 15 #29

We all saw the insurrection happen in real time, and so did Garland. He should have opened the investigation pnwmom Jan 15 #30

It' not just Garland, it's the whole system. Scruffy1 Jan 15 #32

If the sc gave him his way out that's on them. The stalling is on Garland. Autumn Jan 15 #36

Garland should have gone after trump as soon as he started going after trumps idiots. Autumn Jan 15 #35

Thank you. William769 Jan 15 #37

This message was self-deleted by its author Clouds Passing Jan 15 #39

Did you tell duers to have patience four years ago? Emile Jan 15 #40

As soon as the first insurrectionist interviewed opened his or her mouth and said they went to the Capitol because Trump Jit423 Jan 15 #42

Has you question been answered? edhopper Jan 15 #43

Simply this : Justice delayed is Justice denied". OnDoutside Jan 16 #50

1 - Assign someone to investigate tsf on 1/7 and don't give it to some right wing toady! lark Jan 16 #51