Without in anyway disputing the author's conclusion that the prosecution failed to have a litigation strategy I wonder if the following did not also play a part:
a. immediately after the 2020 election Donald Trump seemed to be a failed politician and it was not reasonably expected he would come back as Republican presidential candidate. In those circumstances to immediately launch a prosecution had the potential to seem vindictive and liable to trigger a cycle of politically motivated prosecutions
b. evidence gathering takes time and the ongoing but slow moving congressional inquiry was clearly of assistance
c. it was only when Trump started his resurgence and the Republican Party bowed down before him that there was any urgency to the prosecution.
Without in anyway disputing the author's conclusion that the prosecution failed to have a litigation strategy I wonder if the following did not also play a part:
a. immediately after the 2020 election Donald Trump seemed to be a failed politician and it was not reasonably expected he would come back as Republican presidential candidate. In those circumstances to immediately launch a prosecution had the potential to seem vindictive and liable to trigger a cycle of politically motivated prosecutions
b. evidence gathering takes time and the ongoing but slow moving congressional inquiry was clearly of assistance
c. it was only when Trump started his resurgence and the Republican Party bowed down before him that there was any urgency to the prosecution.
I think the magnitude of the insurrection meant it was urgent, regardless.
However, I am now beginning to think that the key problem was the failure of the impeachment. That is how this should have been dealt with.
To understand this fully, what US statute of limitation applies to this federal offence - as some offences are not time barred?