Which kind of indictment do you prefer? (poll)

[brooklynite]

16 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	A methodically researched indictment that lays out the evidence and charges in detail, even if it takes a while
	16 (100%)
	A simplistic indictment "because we know he's guilty" that comes out quickly.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[peppertree]

1. While tempting, the second is, well, too third-worldy.

It would be like in Argentina, where a popular former president was convicted - after over a dozen other indictments that all fell flat - because, as the judging tribunal put it, "there is no proof but there is no doubt" (yes - that's in the ruling).

That, precisely, is the kind of justice Trump wanted for Democrats (and his "never-Trumpers" ). And while tempting, it must never be allowed to take hold.

[hlthe2b]

2. DUers who have kept up, who watched/read Jan 6 hearings report should have no problem doing a quick

skim of the 45-page document. A lot you already know and you'll just note that it is commented upon. The counts and the description of co-defendants are worth spending some time with--as is the discussion of what is obviously Pence's testimony and notes.

Worth reading. I fear some are losing the habit of reading anything that has any degree of detail. Here is good motivation to turn that around.

[brooklynite]

3. THE BULWARK has been issuing an audio version of each indictment.

Sadly, without emotion.

[Beastly Boy]

4. There are two kinds of indictments, Tuco. The ones that lead to trials slowly and

the ones that lead to acquittals quickly.

I like'em slow and deadly.

[brooklynite]

5. Okay, I'll concede: polls don't reflect reality...

100% of this poll supported a comprehensive indictment over a fast one. But I distinctly recall people complaining that Smith/Garland had all the evidence they needed and should have indicted Trump immediately.