this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
246 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19247 readers
2304 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

”It is one thing to indict a ham sandwich. To indict the mustard-stained napkin that it once sat on is quite another,” the lawyers wrote.

Devastating legal argument, and beautifully written.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

It's one thing to indict a hamberder. To indict the ketchup stained wall it was thrown against is quite another.

[–] Nightwingdragon 9 points 1 year ago

How does this analogy even help them? Doesn't the mustard stain put the napkin at the scene of the crime with the ham sandwich?

[–] transmatrix 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't quite get how this statement applies to their argument? Their argument appears to be that the DA doesn't have "authority"?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I couldn't really figure out what they meant, but apparently it is a reference to a famous statement made by a former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, who said a DA could get a Grand Jury to 'indict a ham sandwich'.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

The grand jury system is generally a joke. It's just a smoke screen for prosecutorial discretion. The DA can present whatever they want (and leave out whatever they don't want) and there's no due process to the defendant since they haven't actually been indicted at that point.

That said, I hope every grand jury and regular jury viewing evidence against trump does their individual responsibility and throws the book at him.