Trump Indictment Watch

[cajunrevenge]

Trump apparently has been given till the 25th to surrender. Fulton County Sheriff days he will release mug shut along with height and weight. Trumps going to go apehsit over having his actual weight released to the public.

[cajunrevenge]

Yes - I want the world to see these proceedings but we all know that a request for secrecy will not come from Trumps side.

When the left inevitably tries to expedite the trial behind closed doors I'll be eager to see your rationale why this is good for democracy.

I could see a reason in the documents case but there is no chance you will ever see me advocate for not having these trials televised.

[thethe]

I could see a reason in the documents case but there is no chance you will ever see me advocate for not having these trials televised.

Ah - creating a caveat already.

CLASSIFED! The rallying cry for the deep state to hide their crimes.

[cajunrevenge]

That's one out of 4 trials. I don't know how you can expect documents that require a SCIF to read can be used as evidence in a trial if it's televised.

[thethe]

That's one out of 4 trials. I don't know how you can expect documents that require a SCIF to read can be used as evidence in a trial if it's televised.

Because they all work for the American people. And if you are going to try and prosecute someone that is supported by anywhere from 40-50% of the population behind the guise of CLASSIFIED then it better be televised.

[cajunrevenge]

Atleast the sentencing where they drag Trump off to his cell will be televised.

[thethe]

Atleast the sentencing where they drag Trump off to his cell will be televised.

That'll be my favorite part because the left doesn't seem to understand symbolism and what that will do for a rallying cry come election day.

[cajunrevenge]

I dont give two ****s who it helps or any of that ****. If you told me prosecuting Trump would cause him to win with 70% of the vote I would still support it. In fact I support prosecuting Biden if theres any actual evidence of a crime when he leaves office too. Tired of these elite ****wads being above the law.

[thethe]

I dont give two ****s who it helps or any of that ****. If you told me prosecuting Trump would cause him to win with 70% of the vote I would still support it. In fact I support prosecuting Biden if theres any actual evidence of a crime when he leaves office too. Tired of these elite ****wads being above the law.

Oh you are mistaken - Prosecution of valid crimes say selling the country out to our worst enemies would not be good for that candidate. However, prosecution on BS charges to try and remove him from the ballot does the exact opposite and I pray that you guys continue.

[striker42]

Super long post warning.

I've read the indictment. I don't think Fani Willis is a very good prosecutor or at least this isn't a very good indictment.

The best criminal cases you can build are the ones that are as simple as you can make them. Defendant did x, this statute says x is illegal, Defendant is guilty. This is why I think the documents case against Trump has the highest likelihood of success. There are clear, discreet acts with matching statutes. The indictment in that case was very tight and specific. It makes the case much easier to try and much easier to win.

This indictment is messy. First, to get a racketeering charge you have to show the enterprise was trying to achieve an illegal purpose. Some illegal actions by members of a group trying to do something legal will not make the entire group a racketeering scheme. It's clear that Willis wanted to charge Trump with overturning the election. That's a political decision for Willis, not a tactical one. Her problem is that attempting to overturn a presidential election isn't illegal in Georgia. So it can't be the basis for a racketeering charge.

Willis instead had to try to hang the racketeering scheme on soliciting public officials to violate their oaths of office. That is a very difficult charge to prove and some of her counts have major problems of their own. Willis went after several instances of trying to get various officials to call special legislative sessions to choose new electors. Those are going to be difficult. Calling special sessions to debate whether to try to choose new electors is something that's within the discretion of those officials. They might ultimately not be able to do it but they have the power to try and then have a court tell them no. If you lobby a legislator to make witchcraft punishable by burning at the stake that doesn't make what you did a crime just because the ultimate end would be outside of the legislature's power.

The attempt to get the Georgia secretary of state to violate his oath of office is another difficult charge. I have to stop here and say I'm basing this on what we publicly know. It's possible Willis has some evidence she's not showing yet that could change things. But based on what's publicly known about that phone call, this charge is very difficult to prove. Everything we know Trump said can be explained away as Trump trying to get the Georgia SOS to do legal acts within his discretion that Trump could have thought might change the result of the election. The statements can be interpreted as Trump soliciting illegal acts too but the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Willis can't prove the counts of soliciting the violations of oaths of office, the racketeering case probably falls apart. The enterprise turns from being one illegally trying to manipulate state officials to one of trying petition state institutions in an attempt to win an election.

I'll stop here to touch on the fake electors issue. Sending alternate electors is something else that's not technically against the law. Trump can say that the process in Washington has to certify which electors are valid and they were there in case the process decided the official electors were not valid. There are some problems for some of the fake electors as they potentially committed forgery in the process but this is another point where Willis has a problem of what she wants to charge not being technically illegal.

If the racketeering charge falls apart there are still some things that could go forward but it will be difficult to get Trump on them. A lot of the remaining counts can be pawned off on lower level people who were overzealous in what they were doing. They can be characterized as not the actions of the enterprise but the actions of individuals.

Another problem Willis has is the fact that she charged so many people and put together such a complex timeline. Every defendant you add multiplies the complexity of a case. The more events you shove into a timeline, the harder it is for prosecutors, much less jurors, to keep it all straight. If the case is too complex for the jury you risk them acquitting the defendants as they wont think the prosecutors have proven their case.

One thing that is in Willis' favor, and it's potentially a trump card (pun intended), is that with so many defendants and unindicted potential defendants, you increase the likelihood some of them will roll. I don't think one turning will be enough. It will probably take flipping a couple but I think the strategy is to indict everyone and put pressure on key players you think you can flip. If the defendants keep a united front and Willis isn't holding crucial non-public evidence, then Willis' case is in trouble.

[thethe]

And then there is this....

As usual the method is always throw out salacious lies in the front and then be very quiet when the truth comes out.

[cajunrevenge]

Super long post warning.

I've read the indictment. I don't think Fani Willis is a very good prosecutor or at least this isn't a very good indictment.

The best criminal cases you can build are the ones that are as simple as you can make them. Defendant did x, this statute says x is illegal, Defendant is guilty. This is why I think the documents case against Trump has the highest likelihood of success. There are clear, discreet acts with matching statutes. The indictment in that case was very tight and specific. It makes the case much easier to try and much easier to win.

This indictment is messy. First, to get a racketeering charge you have to show the enterprise was trying to achieve an illegal purpose. Some illegal actions by members of a group trying to do something legal will not make the entire group a racketeering scheme. It's clear that Willis wanted to charge Trump with overturning the election. That's a political decision for Willis, not a tactical one. Her problem is that attempting to overturn a presidential election isn't illegal in Georgia. So it can't be the basis for a racketeering charge.

Willis instead had to try to hang the racketeering scheme on soliciting public officials to violate their oaths of office. That is a very difficult charge to prove and some of her counts have major problems of their own. Willis went after several instances of trying to get various officials to call special legislative sessions to choose new electors. Those are going to be difficult. Calling special sessions to debate whether to try to choose new electors is something that's within the discretion of those officials. They might ultimately not be able to do it but they have the power to try and then have a court tell them no. If you lobby a legislator to make witchcraft punishable by burning at the stake that doesn't make what you did a crime just because the ultimate end would be outside of the legislature's power.

The attempt to get the Georgia secretary of state to violate his oath of office is another difficult charge. I have to stop here and say I'm basing this on what we publicly know. It's possible Willis has some evidence she's not showing yet that could change things. But based on what's publicly known about that phone call, this charge is very difficult to prove. Everything we know Trump said can be explained away as Trump trying to get the Georgia SOS to do legal acts within his discretion that Trump could have thought might change the result of the election. The statements can be interpreted as Trump soliciting illegal acts too but the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Willis can't prove the counts of soliciting the violations of oaths of office, the racketeering case probably falls apart. The enterprise turns from being one illegally trying to manipulate state officials to one of trying petition state institutions in an attempt to win an election.

I'll stop here to touch on the fake electors issue. Sending alternate electors is something else that's not technically against the law. Trump can say that the process in Washington has to certify which electors are valid and they were there in case the process decided the official electors were not valid. There are some problems for some of the fake electors as they potentially committed forgery in the process but this is another point where Willis has a problem of what she wants to charge not being technically illegal.

If the racketeering charge falls apart there are still some things that could go forward but it will be difficult to get Trump on them. A lot of the remaining counts can be pawned off on lower level people who were overzealous in what they were doing. They can be characterized as not the actions of the enterprise but the actions of individuals.

Another problem Willis has is the fact that she charged so many people and put together such a complex timeline. Every defendant you add multiplies the complexity of a case. The more events you shove into a timeline, the harder it is for prosecutors, much less jurors, to keep it all straight. If the case is too complex for the jury you risk them acquitting the defendants as they wont think the prosecutors have proven their case.

One thing that is in Willis' favor, and it's potentially a trump card (pun intended), is that with so many defendants and unindicted potential defendants, you increase the likelihood some of them will roll. I don't think one turning will be enough. It will probably take flipping a couple but I think the strategy is to indict everyone and put pressure on key players you think you can flip. If the defendants keep a united front and Willis isn't holding crucial non-public evidence, then Willis' case is in trouble.

I think this is a fair assessment. I think what makes the difference is that the reasons Trump was pushing for the overturning of election results were lies that any reasonable person would know that are either not true or not proven. The plot to overturn the results via legislature was reported on before the election and Googliani's aid has said it was being discussed in February 2020. So I have to wonder if Fanni can show that the plot began before voting even started. Imo that makes a big difference. People have a right to vote and not be disenfranchised. What Trump was demanding was that the Georgia state legislature disenfranchise the voters of the state which is a violation of their oath of office. With the fake electors I think it hinges on submitting them even after knowing there was no chance Trump would prevail in any of those states. Alternate electors are fine in cases where the winner is disputed or close enough that the winner could change. They tried to submit them to Pence and pressured him to reject the legal electors in favor of the fake electors.

[cajunrevenge]

And then there is this....

As usual the method is always throw out salacious lies in the front and then be very quiet when the truth comes out.

We heard the phone call. What the WaPo said has nothing to do with anything. You people think we read every media article ever written. Most have never heard of these articles you talk about.

[thethe]

We heard the phone call. What the WaPo said has nothing to do with anything. You people think we read every media article ever written. Most have never heard of these articles you talk about.

And yet almost all polling has over 55% of population thst thinks cheating impacted the 2020 election. M


And what you heard was a clip of the call leaving out key context that completely exonerated the notion trump asked for an illegal action.

[cajunrevenge]

So if enough people believed Trump colluded with Russia that would be proof it was true?

[thethe]

So if enough people believed Trump colluded with Russia that would be proof it was true?

That didn't stand the test of time because it was obvious BS.

The amount of people that believe election stealing happened has GROWN.

[nsacpi]

Super long post warning.

I've read the indictment. I don't think Fani Willis is a very good prosecutor or at least this isn't a very good indictment.

The best criminal cases you can build are the ones that are as simple as you can make them. Defendant did x, this statute says x is illegal, Defendant is guilty. This is why I think the documents case against Trump has the highest likelihood of success. There are clear, discreet acts with matching statutes. The indictment in that case was very tight and specific. It makes the case much easier to try and much easier to win.

This indictment is messy. First, to get a racketeering charge you have to show the enterprise was trying to achieve an illegal purpose. Some illegal actions by members of a group trying to do something legal will not make the entire group a racketeering scheme. It's clear that Willis wanted to charge Trump with overturning the election. That's a political decision for Willis, not a tactical one. Her problem is that attempting to overturn a presidential election isn't illegal in Georgia. So it can't be the basis for a racketeering charge.

Willis instead had to try to hang the racketeering scheme on soliciting public officials to violate their oaths of office. That is a very difficult charge to prove and some of her counts have major problems of their own. Willis went after several instances of trying to get various officials to call special legislative sessions to choose new electors. Those are going to be difficult. Calling special sessions to debate whether to try to choose new electors is something that's within the discretion of those officials. They might ultimately not be able to do it but they have the power to try and then have a court tell them no. If you lobby a legislator to make witchcraft punishable by burning at the stake that doesn't make what you did a crime just because the ultimate end would be outside of the legislature's power.

The attempt to get the Georgia secretary of state to violate his oath of office is another difficult charge. I have to stop here and say I'm basing this on what we publicly know. It's possible Willis has some evidence she's not showing yet that could change things. But based on what's publicly known about that phone call, this charge is very difficult to prove. Everything we know Trump said can be explained away as Trump trying to get the Georgia SOS to do legal acts within his discretion that Trump could have thought might change the result of the election. The statements can be interpreted as Trump soliciting illegal acts too but the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Willis can't prove the counts of soliciting the violations of oaths of office, the racketeering case probably falls apart. The enterprise turns from being one illegally trying to manipulate state officials to one of trying petition state institutions in an attempt to win an election.

I'll stop here to touch on the fake electors issue. Sending alternate electors is something else that's not technically against the law. Trump can say that the process in Washington has to certify which electors are valid and they were there in case the process decided the official electors were not valid. There are some problems for some of the fake electors as they potentially committed forgery in the process but this is another point where Willis has a problem of what she wants to charge not being technically illegal.

If the racketeering charge falls apart there are still some things that could go forward but it will be difficult to get Trump on them. A lot of the remaining counts can be pawned off on lower level people who were overzealous in what they were doing. They can be characterized as not the actions of the enterprise but the actions of individuals.

Another problem Willis has is the fact that she charged so many people and put together such a complex timeline. Every defendant you add multiplies the complexity of a case. The more events you shove into a timeline, the harder it is for prosecutors, much less jurors, to keep it all straight. If the case is too complex for the jury you risk them acquitting the defendants as they wont think the prosecutors have proven their case.

One thing that is in Willis' favor, and it's potentially a trump card (pun intended), is that with so many defendants and unindicted potential defendants, you increase the likelihood some of them will roll. I don't think one turning will be enough. It will probably take flipping a couple but I think the strategy is to indict everyone and put pressure on key players you think you can flip. If the defendants keep a united front and Willis isn't holding crucial non-public evidence, then Willis' case is in trouble.

I'm not a lawyer but from reading some of the analysis of the case, this part of the Georgia Code seems destined to play a large role in the trial.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...20subdivisions

My layman's reading is that in Georgia it is illegal to lie or disseminate false information to a public official about any matter within that official's purview. It is a rather broad law. Broader than its federal counterpart that criminalizes making false statements to federal officials.

When very poorly chosen one produces his report on Monday on how the election in Georgia was rigged, he will be within his first amendment rights. However, before he transmits that report to any Georgia legislator or state or local official involved in conducting elections and enforcing election laws he should carefully listen to what his lawyers have to say.

[thethe]

I'm not a lawyer but from reading some of the analysis of the case, this part of the Georgia Code seems destined to play a large role in the trial.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...20subdivisions

My layman's reading is that in Georgia it is illegal to lie to a public official about any matter within that official's purview. It is a rather broad law. Broader than its federal counterpart that criminalizes making false statements to federal officials.

What was the lie and how can you prove it was a lie?

Small details I know....

[nsacpi]

What was the lie and how can you prove it was a lie?

Small details I know....

The defendant informed the Georgia Secretary of State that he won the presidential election in Georgia by "hundreds of thousands of votes." That is laughable. A laughable lie.

When alternative reality meets up with the legal system the results can be unpleasant for the inhabitants of alternative reality.

[Garmel]

The defendant informed the Georgia Secretary of State that he won the presidential election in Georgia by "hundreds of thousands of votes." That is laughable. A laughable lie.

That's the issue right there. If Trump has information that gives him the idea that he lost the election it's not a lie. Erroneous information isn't a lie. Seriously, this is why these indictments will fail is because it requires mindreading.