Comment: that's a big question

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Wow! Excellent. (see in situ)

that's a big question

Since it's a caucus, the "other side(s)" will argue against whatever the arrested people argue. One argument will be a caucus is a private club affair...not subject to state intrusion.

So, the obvious comeback from our side will be along the lines of "yeah, so why the cops?"

I'm not a lawyer, but that essentially is where the conversation begins...where it goes from there likely would be technical.

Everyone in that gym was intimidated. Everyone was threatened with arrest, directly and repeatedly.

In my view, everyone in the state of Missouri was affected AND in fact everyone in the nation since it's a federal election.

But that's my layman view...and I've been involved in enough litigation to know it can be quite technical.

Besides, there never really has been an instance of this kind of thing...I've never seen or heard of a major party caucus being disrupted in quite this way.

California once had a primary where off duty cops were hired by a GOP campaign to work in uniform, stationed at polling places to scare away Hispanic voters...but still, the "intimidation" there wasn't quite the same as here...those cops just stood there, didn't talk to anyone and didn't arrest anyone.

That they were used to intimidate was "clear" but unprovable.

That instance is the only thing I know of even remotely close to what happened in St. Charles.

Because there are so many questions we need good lawyers to answer them for us :)