Without knowing the evidence presented to the grand jury, nor the charges on the indictment, it's hard to judge the strength or weakness of the prosecution's case again the man.
> If they couldn't get anything on Trump for J6, then they have nothing, and it's all witch hunts here
"They" are different prosecutors in different jurisdictions investigating different potential crimes. I don't see how it's possible to conclude that if evidence is lacking in one or more cases, that it's categorically improbable for this man to have committed crimes relative to any and all cases. In essence, you are claiming that lacking evidence of a causal connection to the events of January 6, we are to conclude that any criminal investigations involving this man in unrelated matters must likewise be baseless. This is illogical.
Without knowing the evidence presented to the grand jury, nor the charges on the indictment, it's hard to judge the strength or weakness of the prosecution's case again the man.
> If they couldn't get anything on Trump for J6, then they have nothing, and it's all witch hunts here
"They" are different prosecutors in different jurisdictions investigating different potential crimes. I don't see how it's possible to conclude that if evidence is lacking in one or more cases, that it's categorically improbable for this man to have committed crimes relative to any and all cases. In essence, you are claiming that lacking evidence of a causal connection to the events of January 6, we are to conclude that any criminal investigations involving this man in unrelated matters must likewise be baseless. This is illogical.