Trump supporters claim that a good prosecutor could indict a Ham Sandwich? Well, here's where Trump lands on that scale.

Psssst . . . you do realize that the phrase is an indictment of corrupt D.A.'s?

It's actually a comment that identifies the speaker as a dunce. In the entire history of the United States not one prosecutor has ever indicted a ham sandwich. They have, however, indicted, and subsequently convicted a considerable number of criminals.

Theoretically if one comprehend the difference between 'could or can' and 'did or does' then the meaning of the saying would become clear . . . but that reply indicates that in this case it WOULD be a forlorn hope.

Aye; and all while they are spitting on the meaning of the Constitution.

Literally none of that applies in any of Trump's cases.

And how times did people try to charge Trump with 1/6 and failed on top of documents?

The 3 criminal indictments that currently target Donald Trump are the first criminal indictments he has faced for any of these crimes in their respective jurisdictions, so there is no double jeopardy.

So it's playing fast and loose & hair splitting with the Constitution. No legit prosecutor or judge would ever attempt or permit such abuse of power. There's also a blatant lack of a speedy trial. The judge and prosecutor seem to be stretching things out for what is supposed to be slam dunk case.

>> So it's playing fast and loose & hair splitting with the Constitution. No legit prosecutor or judge would ever attempt or permit such abuse of power.<<

Utter nonsense. Smith has kept his investigation on the straight and narrow and there is nothing remotely shady or abusive about how he has been handling things.

>> There's also a blatant lack of a speedy trial. <<

Geeze, Trump has only just been indicted, and it is Trump who is trying to delay the trials at this point. Smith would clearly prefer to schedule the trials for later this year which is actually a nicely accelerated pace as such things go.