• artyom@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

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

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 days 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
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

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

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 days 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?