The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Georgia Case Against Trump
Trump's Georgia indictment has much in common with the most recent federal case against him. But also breaks some new ground.
Yesterday's Georgia state indictment against Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election in that state includes charges similar to those in the recent federal indictment filed by special counsel Jack Smith. But it also breaks considerable new ground. To the extent that the charges deal with similar issues, Georgia is—in my view—well-justified in prosecuting Trump, for much the same reasons as the federal government is. But some of the charges raise technical legal issues I prefer to leave to commentators with greater relevant expertise.
Some of the charges against Trump and 18 other defendants in the Georgia indictment are similar to recently filed federal charges. For example, both feature charges of fraud related to Trump's scheme to replace Georgia's electors with slates of fake electors, and pressure state officials into falsifying vote counts. While some technical details diverge, there legal case against Trump on these issues is strong (see my discussion of the relevant federal issues here and here), and there is a strong rationale for prosecution based on the need for retribution and deterrence.
As in the federal case, the relevant Georgia fraud statutes (which focus on defrauding the government and election fraud) are not confined to property crimes. And, as in that case, Trump is not being prosecuted merely for claiming he won the election or that fraud occurred. Rather, the indictment details a long list of schemes to substitute fake electors for real ones and otherwise coerce and defraud state officials.
Some might wonder why state officials can prosecute Trump for much the same as crimes as the feds. After all, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars defendants from being twice "put in jeopardy" for "the same offence." Part of the answer is that Trump has not yet been tried (much less convicted or acquitted) on the federal charges.
But in addition, the Supreme Court has long held that there is a "dual-sovereignty" exception to the double jeopardy clause—a rule recently reaffirmed by the Court in its 7-2 decision in Gamble v. United States (2019). Because states and the federal government are separate sovereigns, the Court reasoned, they are permitted to each try the same person for what is substantively the same offense.
In my view, there is a lot of merit to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and Neil Gorsuch's dissenting opinions, in Gamble, arguing that the dual-sovereignty doctrine is wrong. But the Court is unlikely to overturn that rule anytime soon. Thus, Georgia and the feds can both prosecute Trump (and perhaps others) for similar election-related offenses. If Trump gets acquitted in one proceeding, that doesn't give him a pass on the other. Conservatives and others who don't like that can blame the Supreme Court.
Along with these similarities to the federal charges, there are also key differences. Many of the counts against Trump and other defendants are under Georgia's state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). I am sure there are lots of newly minted RICO experts commenting away on Twitter and elsewhere. But I'm not going to pretend to be one of them, and so will have to leave this issue to others.
There are a number of other Georgia-specific charges, as well, such as claims that some of Trump's co-conspirators illegally accessed state election data. I will leave that to relevant experts, as well.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the federal and Georgia indictments is that the latter features 19 defendants, while the former is limited to Trump (though the feds may well file charges against others in separate proceedings).
Some of the Georgia co-defendants are the same people as Trump's unindicted co-conspirators from the federal indictment, most notably Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell. Others are lesser-known figures, including some whose involvement in election skullduggery appears to have been limited to Georgia. The inclusion of 19 total defendants is likely to make for a longer and more complicated trial and appellate process. Jack Smith may have chosen to charge Trump separately to avoid such problems.
If time permits, I may have more to say about some of Trump's co-defendants in future posts. One of them—Eastman—is a person I knew for many years in his capacity as a law professor; but I should emphasize (in case prosecutors are reading this!) that I have no inside knowledge of his involvement in Trump's schemes to overturn the election.
Experts are divided on whether Trump can potentially force the removal of the Georgia case to federal court. If he can do so, he might potentially get a more favorable jury pool, and also possibly claim immunity to some or all of the charges on the grounds that he was just engaged in his official duty. I highly doubt the latter gambit will work, even if the former succeeds. Trump was pretty obviously acting to advance his private interests as a candidate, not discharge his official responsibilities. But this too is an issue best left to those with greater expertise.
Finally, it's worth noting that the Georgia charges cannot be pardoned by the president, as they are state offenses, not federal ones. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp cannot pardon them either, as the pardon power in that state is controlled by an independent board, not the governor. And even the board cannot issue a pardon until after at least five years have passed since the applicant completed his sentence.
In sum, the Georgia case against Trump deepens his legal jeopardy, and at least some of the charges seem compelling. On others, I must defer to the assessment of commentators with greater expertise.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes, that dual sovereigns rule has always struck me as wrong.
For info, last year the EU court of just held that the double jeopardy rule also applies to successive law enforcement actions by different EU Member States, who are definitely each sovereign.
Case C-151/20, Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Nordzucker AG and Others
(Note that this judgment, being based on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, does not apply to all criminal law enforcement, but only to areas of law that are governed by EU law, such as competition law.)
With the retirement of Brennan and Marshall and the addition of Souter and Thomas, the double jeopardy rule was tightened so that it applies only when the actual elements of the crime are the same, not just the same conduct. Compare Grady v. Corbin, 1990 with United States v. Dixon, 1993 (I commented on these here on May 29). With states and the feds working from different criminal codes, it seems that double jeopardy would apply now only where the statutory language matches pretty exactly.
Yeah, it’s a serious shame, but it’s also a consequence of the vast expansion of federal reach; Originally there wasn’t much opportunity for dual prosecutions, because federal and state jurisdiction would almost never overlap, if one had jurisdiction, the other wouldn’t.
Repeating it doesn’t make this any more true than when you originally made it up.
I hate to admit when Brett has something of a point, but . . . If you’re my age you might remember the “tough on crime” era of the 1990’s when Congress strained to federalize any crime that could possibly involve “interstate commerce” so that they could extend the death penalty to it. On the other hand in some areas of law (for example, gun regulation) state laws are useless and the feds need to get involved.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument your statement that “state laws are useless for guns, and the feds need to get involved.”
If that’s true, then states passing laws against magazines, “assault weapons,” and nearly anything else are acting in pure bad faith, because they’re passing laws they know to be useless.
If you’re admitting that the anti-gun left acts in bad faith, and promulgates laws in blue states purely to piss off gun owners, why should we ascribe any good faith to anything you do?
Okay? It’s certainly true that federal criminal law has expanded over the course of American history to cover more crimes that would traditionally have been handled at the state level. (That said, your one example is also wrong: most gun crimes are still prosecuted in state court.)
But since the first federal crimes were created but the Crimes Act of 1790, there have been many ways to commit federal crimes that would also be state offenses. Brett Bellmore’s repeated insistence to the contrary is false nostalgia for a libertarian fairyland that never was.
My example is that only federal regulation of guns would be effective. But it is deficient. Most gun crimes should be prosecuted federally.
This is a stupid tangent that has nothing to do with Brett Bellmore’s original stupid “point”, but okay…
Why?
It absolutely is true. There never were federal laws prior to the modern era criminalizing all robberies of businesses, all arson fires of rental buildings, all carjackings, all illegal drug possession, all gun possession by felons, and so on.
I’m bothered by dual sovereignty as a backdoor approach to double jeopardy myself. On the other hand, I can see where something of the sort might be necessary.
For instance, in the Jim Crow south, perpetrators of lynchings might well have been acquitted by all-white juries, despite the manifest evidence of their guilt. To secure justice and to deter further lynching, it might well have been necessary to try the case again, in a court less biased in the defendents’ favor.
It’s just as easy to imagine such a situation today. Many of us will recall that O. J. Simpson’s acquittal on murder charges was pretty much guaranteed after it was decided to try him in Los Angeles. And I suspect that a Left Coast jury might well be disinclined to convict a participant in the mostly-peaceful BLM protests, even if said participant had been caught dead to rights torching cars and looting liquor stores.
Wouldn’t the jurors in those scenarios come from geographical areas that mostly overlap with the state jurisdictions? No reason to think the results would be any different.
And in the “left coast” cases you referenced, what’s the federal nexus to give a federal court jurisdiction? Murder and property damage are almost always tried in state court.
Arson of any building affecting interstate commerce is prosecutable in the federal system, and the courts have been very lax in determining what affecting interstate commerce means.
No reason… except actual empirical historical evidence.
For one thing, the prosecutors in the federal cases were actually trying to secure convictions, and the judges in the federal cases weren’t throwing the cases.
Ken White talked about the Georgia RICO statute, he had given it a quick perusal. Apparently it’s a little different than other state RICO statutes, and it may put these defendants into some legal jeopardy. I’d be interested to read what the lawyers here think about that. I would not be interested to read the usual pro-Trump anti-Trump bickering, but I’m sure we’ll get plenty of that.
I’d say the Fulton County DA’s Office is a Monkey House, but that’d be insulting to Monkeys.
This is the same Office that took 3.5 years to try Brian Nichols, who murdered a Judge, Court Reporter, a Deputy Sherriff, escaped and killed an INS agent, oh yeah,
at the time of the murders he was being tried the second time for a rape that they got a mistrial on the first time.
What a dumbass, he just waited it out, he’d be a free man.
Fulton County, where the shit hole John Louis represented is, and if it wasn’t for North Fulton County, it’d be whatever worse than a shithole is.
It’s part of why the Braves play in Cobb County (with an “Atlanta” mailing address)
Frank
It may be “the same office” in the sense that it’s got the same name (“Fulton County DA”) on the letterhead, but this was 15 years ago and had an entirely different DA, so it’s entirely unclear what the point of bringing it up was, other than an excuse for more racism on your part.
It’s a tradition of incompetence in the ATL, since the 1970’s, not really sure what happened then to start it.
And I know you’re not from Jaw-Jaw, but Fanny (no one in Jaw-Jaw calls her Fawn-ee) was an Ass-istant (emphasis on the “Ass”) DA for 16 years with Fulton County.
I.E., during the whole Brian Nichols Debacle. (you have to specify the Fulton County DA Debacles, as they’re so numerous)
Frank
TDS had almost destroyed the legal profession. In order to “get Trump”, they are willing to abandon all former opinions, professional ethics, laws, and precedents.
I hope this boomerangs on the left just as bad as Harry Reid’s abandonment of the filibuster for federal judges.
What former opinions, professional ethics, laws, or precedents were abandoned?
“Technical issues”….ie even Somin realizes what a disaster this indictment is.
OMG. Trump told people on Twitter to watch the news! Evidence of conspiracy! Jail him!
Don’t forget when he illegally reserved that meeting room!
Is that your expert opinion as a fake lawyer?
Ah, yes, I see that’s exactly what it is. A graduate of Armchair Law School — only slightly less prestigious than Twitter Law School — who doesn’t understand how conspiracy works.
Oh tell us Mr. Expert who doesn’t know who actually manufactures his own OTC medicine…
How does telling people to watch the news count as “conspiracy”?
I await with anticipation your expert analysis.
Do you think that there might be some more to the allegations than just that in the indictment somewhere?
Do you think that he actually bothered to read the indictment? Do you think he understands the difference between the overt acts that are an element of a conspiracy charge and the object of the conspiracy itself, and that only the latter need involve an illegal act?
Still waiting Mr. Knows so much….
Go on. Explain in depth how Act 22 was “was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy””
We’re waiting. You still haven’t explained anything.
Jesus, you’re so clueless you didn’t even notice getting pwned.
Look, if you want to compete with the likes of Tom Fitton, you’re going to have to work harder than that.
in the year 2000 using the term “pwned” (I said “in the year 2000” not now) will get you “terminated with extreme prejudice”
Seriously, you say “pwned” (how is that even pronounced? don’t know, don’t care) I know you have a (Homo)Man-Bun, Play Hacky-Sack, and wear “Affliction” T-shirts, oh, and you have tattoos, and closest you’ve been to the military is standing behind a real Hero waiting to get into “Top Gun/Maverick”
Frank
It appears I’m so uncool I triggered Frank.
Someone find him a (very current) safe space to recover in.
Oh, wait, that’s called “Florida” now.
said like someone that just got caught in the (Allegorical) Crosshairs of my (Allegorical) Night Vision Scope
1: Man-Bun Check
2: Hacky Sack Check
3: Affliction T-Shirt Check
4: Tattoos Check
5: Never served (I know, “Homo, much better now”)
Tell me which ones I got wrong (For JC’s sake, it’s AlGores Internets, I don’t have a camera on your computer (or do I???*)
Frank (No Man/bun, no Hacky Sack, no Afflictions, no Tattoos (it’s a Jewish Thang, something the Nazi’s deface you with to identify you) and proud “Combat” Veteran (OK, Gulf War 1 deserves all the “”” it gets)
* I don’t
All these people saying I’m “clueless”….yet still can’t seem to explain it.
Huh.
If they aren’t in any indictment, where do you think they might be? In some Democrat Star Chamber?
Although awkwardly phrased, I interpreted the wording as more “than just THAT in the indictment” (i.e., there’s other stuff in the indictment ” rather than that there was more claimed “than that in the indictment”.
Watch the news?
Among the many many little things that supposedly led to the conspiracy was Act 22.
Act22: On or about the 3rd day of December2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, “Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing!” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy”
And at this point, we’ve jumped the shark.
As DN has explained, an “overt act” means that you don’t understand the first thing about conspiracies.
For conspiracy theories, of course, you’ll be my first best go-to source.
Oh, please explain it for us poor stupid fools. Explain how telling someone to watch the news is an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy.
You seem to not be able to.
How about if I teach you how to fish?
Google: overt act wikipedia
Nope, you still can’t explain it. Funny, no matter how much you claim it is,….no one seems to be able to accurately explain it.
Wait a sec, now I’m confused. Are you saying you’re too stupid to google, too stupid to read the page, or too stupid to understand it?
In case it’s the first one, I’ll do you a favor. Here’s your damn fish:
If you’re simply too stupid to read or understand it, then you can’t be helped I guess. You’ll just have to soldier on in ignorance.
OK… Now tell us how the tweet “Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing” does any of that. What “Criminal intent” does that tweet support.
Bonus points if you can identify the actual crime that this tweet was meant to be an actual Overt Act to support. Cite case law and code number.
Oh my god.
Google: trump georgia indictment
And you’ve failed. If you can’t explain it, you’ve got nothing. At least be honest.
For the benefit of the audience:
If you were filing false documents and perpetrating a fraud, you’d want to give it all an air legitimacy with the public by promoting their apparently newsworthy appearance in official proceedings.
Armchair Lawyer keeps stupidly trying to look at the acts in isolation. Look at Act 22 in conjunction with Acts 23 – 27.
Did that tweet contain coded communications to these co-conspirators?
That seems to be the only imaginable way this could, for example, further a conspiracy to commit perjury or forgery.
See Armchair? You really want to be on the same side as Michael here?
I’m not persuaded Act 22 belongs, even in the context of 23-27. The latter five acts stand on their own merits as overt acts.
“Wikipedia”!?!?!?
that’s Authoritative!
Google “Dumb (as) Fuck”
Frank
I’ll grant you that one. And Act 1 doesn’t belong as well. That still leaves 159 overt acts.
Like reserving a meeting room!
That was an overt act because the purpose of the meeting was to coordinate with the fake electors.
There’s a lot wrong with much of the rest of it, that criminalizes free speech, opinion, areas that aren’t factually clear necessarily, and so on. It’s easier to focus on the counts honestly, than the acts (which can be gone into in depth).
Areas which may be unclear, but in which facts are asserted (but later might not be accurate) are then criminalized. And that’s a big problem.
You need to be very specific with what is wrong.
Criminals laws have to be fairly specific as to what they prohibit.
This idictment is very specific.
What are you even saying? Areas may be unclear but in which facts are asserted but might be future-inaccurate are then criminalized? Yeah, that is a big problem. A big, fat, linguistic problem. Huh?
If the wife is found at the bottom of the river chained to a cement block, and the husband has a receipt for the cement block in his pocket, that doesn’t mean cement blocks and receipts have been “criminalized.”
The claim that the statutes under which Donald Trump is charged criminalize free speech is specious. The constitutional freedom for speech and press extends no immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949).
Here, as in Giboney:
336 U.S., at 502 [citations omitted]. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951):
Id., at 575 (Jackson, J., concurring in judgment).
Lol this is the inverse of all the proof of voter fraud that was going to hit the courts thanks to team kraken.
Nige-bot thinks Kraken are an NHL Team
Prof Somin provides a sufficiently objective analysis that some conclusions come out on either side of the issue.
To AL, this is an alien concept so he assumes it is surrender or something.
Oh, and that’s the current Jaw-Jaw Flag, adopted in 2003 after a statewide referendum, which ironically (Jaw-Jaw is nothing but Ironic) more resembles the original Confederate Flag, than the supposedly race-ist “1956” Flag (which was replaced with an interim Flag from 2001-2003 that had TWO Confederate Flags (very small in size, but there nevertheless)
Frank
The long list of crimes Somin is referring to are a bunch of felonious tweets and illegal room reservations.
Good grief you people are caricatures.
That is not the list of crimes. That is a list of overt acts.
“Overt Acts”??
You watch “Law & Order too??” Seriously, you’re about as much a lawyer as Jackie Chiles I mean Jackie Chan
Frank “Denny Crane!”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overt_act
If Trump can be indicted for conspiracy for his tweets and allegations that the 2020 election was won by Biden due to fraud, then it should be a slam dunk to indict HRClinton for her part in producing and promoting the Steele documents used to accuse Trump of winning the 2016 election by “collusion”.
Clinton, her attorneys, Steele, the Ohr’s, FBI agents (including the love-birds), and several government employees, plus the then President and Vice-President were all in that conspiracy. I want to see all of them indicted for conspiracy and fraud as well.
Now THAT was a real conspiracy which resulted in a political fraud being pushed on our nation and investigated for almost the entirety of Trump’s presidency.
I can’t believe Somin is treating the Georgia indictment as anything other than the political prosecution it obviously is and has been since day one. Under Fani Willis’ standards, we can now charge several politicians and their attorneys with conspiracy and fraud during every election cycle. But I want to start with HRC.
‘then it should be a slam dunk’
Trump’s DOJ didn’t manage it, Durham didn’t manage it, and Trump’s civil case came a cropper, too, so, no, in fact it isn’t a slam dunk at all
Nige-bot has moment of clarity, coincidentally at peak of Perseids Meteor Activity.
Durham was under the impression the old rules were still in force.
Someone as creative as Jack Smith could have brought indictments against the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton), Obama, FJB, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, and others.
If CindyF is too stupid to read, then can she sue her teachers for educational malpractice?
What illegal conduct was the object of the “conspiracy” supposedly involving “Clinton, her attorneys, Steele, the Ohr’s, FBI agents (including the love-birds), and several government employees, plus the then President and Vice-President”?
Don’t you feel bad for CindyF? I feel bad for CindyF. What a rotten life.
You know it, you know that fat fuck probably costs $1,000/month just in Watermelon/Fried Chicken.
I will write this.
For the first two years, despite by opposition to the whole “Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” propaganda campaign, I did not know that anyone either in the Clinton campaign, the Special Counsel’s team, or the network broadcast and print media, had actually committed any crimes, let alone that the whole thing was a criminal conspiracy.
The first published indication that I am aware of was an accusation, first made in 2018, that the Clinton campaign actually paid for the Steele dosser and hid it by categorizing it as a legal expense. In 2019, accusations first surfaced that Kevin Clinesmith actually altered an e-mail sent to the FISA court to get a warrant on Carter Page (an act that clearly is evidence tampering)
The Clinton Campaign settled with the FEC, and Clinesmith plead guilty.
There is, of course, probable cause that there was a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2016 election, given these unlawful acts used to further this campaign.
You think there was a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election before the election? That’s really an amazing crime, for Hillary to have gone back in time to try to overturn her own election in advance. And then, she failed to do so! With a time machine! That’s really rough.
The dossier can’t be part of a conspiracy to steal an election because Clinton conceded. Now, had she followed up the dossier with pressuring state officials/Biden/DOJ and created fake electors, then you’ve got your conspiracy.
Did Hillary Clinton at any time after she conceded the election claim that the 2016 election was stolen?
Hillary threw the Steele Dossier in the trash…McCain handed it to his fellow Bush Republicans in the FBI. Have you ever heard of Hillsdale College?? The FBI agent that initiated Crossfire Hurricane graduated from Hillsdale…now it’s time that you transform into a moron and pretend that Hillsdale is a liberal college just like the Federalist pretended that Instapundit is a liberal journalist.
Hell yeah, she wrote a fucking book about it!
But you know what she never did? Claim to have won.
Tampering with evidence.
Hiding the source of funds for the Steele dossier.
Apparently it’s too ironic for Trump to say the charges are trumped-up.
I know he’s been dying for the last 20 years, but why wasn’t Jimmuh Cartuh Indicted for this (besides the fact he’s Jimmuh Cartuh and has been dying for the last 20 years)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/politics/jimmy-carter-trump-russia-interference/index.html
I know the Statue of Limitation’s left the building with Elvis, but why not charge Jimmuh in 2019? he’d only been dying 16 years then.
Frank
What federal statute(s) do you suggest that Jimmy Carter violated, Frank? Please be specific.
As for the statute of limitations, the CNN article you link to is dated Friday, June 28, 2019. It reports statements that Carter made on “Friday,” to which Donald Trump was asked to react to Carter during a Saturday news conference. That suggests that the Friday on which Carter commented was June 21, 2019. If there was any crime, the five year statute of limitations has not yet expired.
Federal Statues Jimmuh Cartuh violated??
OK, I-ANAL, but whatever the one is that covers sucking Yassar Arafat’s cock, Oh, and this beauty.
https://hotair.com/bryan/2007/11/07/jimmy-carter-cat-slayer-n150880
yeah, Jimmuh Cartuh killed his neighbor’s Cat with a pellet gun, I think maybe that’s why J-Hey is torturing him by letting him live forever with 5 different “Terminal” Diseases.
Frank
This case needs to play out. There is no doubt that this is politically motivated, it’s an open secret. The cases need to play out.
Why would Trump accept the results of the election? Hillary “Sore Loser” Clinton called him illegitimate and rejected the election results in 2016. Trump was dogged incessantly by the Democrats for being a Russian plant. Lest we forget RussiaGate and the clear and overt lies that Adam Schiff ejaculated every time a camera was shoved in his face. Then, he was impeached for asking the Ukraine to look into the corrupt Biden family. We now know that there are significant questionable events surrounding the Biden family and their interactions with the Ukraine.
The margin of victory in a few states was very small percentage win for Biden. After going through Hillary’s rhetoric, Schiff’s rhetoric, and Pelosi’s rhetoric, a rational person may have had reason to question the election results. There is clear evidence of a political conspiracy against Trump from the moment he won the election through the 2020 election. This may be the best way to demonstrate “intent”.
I hate to say it, but Trump was a victim. Yes, he dug that grave for himself, but there are many folks who actively and knowingly lied to specifically tarnish the credibility of the president (looking at you, Schiff). And of course there is Nancy Pelosi. Her incessant nagging and the toxic nature of her rhetoric will come back to bite her in the ass.
Of course Trump didn’t accept the election results. He was given many reasons to be skeptical by the political establishment. That is key to establishing intent. Trump may be able to thank the Democrats for not only getting him re-elected in 2024, but also exonerating him from any crimes due to intent.
Wow, that actually made sense. Prepare to be accused of sleeping with your Dead Brother’s (Hot) Widow.
C’mon (Man!) are you Hunter Biden???
Frank
It’s easier to convince the jury of his intent than to defend the case on its merits. You have a good chance of a hung jury, or an acquittal.
I say this from experience. I once sat for a jury in Paterson, NJ. The perp was accused of possession, selling and distributing drugs in a school zone. When we went to deliberate, nearly all of us except for one person thought the perp was guilty on all charges. I will never forget the one juror reminding us over and over of the threshold we needed to meet to secure a guilty vote: beyond a reasonable doubt.
She said over and over, “if you have one doubt, you can’t choose guilty. How many of you have not one doubt about the case against this person?”
Needless to say, all we could agree on was possession. She saved this guy from other charges. I will never forget that moment, and the impact was significant to me.
You just need to convince one juror to derail the government’s case. I’ve been in a jury where it happened with far better evidence than what is being brought up against Trump.
Charges are meaningless. Persuasion of the jury is the most important thing.
And her underage daughter. Don’t forget that.
‘Hillary “Sore Loser” Clinton called him illegitimate and rejected the election results in 2016.’
No she didn’t. The rest is a bunch of lies, too.
Nige-bot doing the Robot E-gypt-ian into Denial. OK, this is from the Pubic Broadcasting System, so why am I even citing it? (well I do like the opportunity to use “Pubic” in a sentence)https://trendingpolitics.com/hillary-clinton-claims-she-won-the-216-election/
Frank
Well thats different, she didn’t tweet about it. Did she?
Wow…
That’s the basis of the claim?
Clinton: “So maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again,”
Did it occur to you that she simply misspoke? Like she meant to say something like “Obviously, I can beat him if I ran again.” Or “Obviously, I was beating him for most of the contest so I can beat him again.”.
I mean you have a single out-of-context phrase expressing a sentiment she not only never repeated again, but she repeatedly contradicted. Who do you think you’re convincing?
Spot on! Lies from Hillary. Lies from Schiff. Lies form Schumer. Lies from Pelosi.
I wonder if it will create a constitutional crisis for Trump’s legal team to depose Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi to get them on the record that their rhetoric was all lies. Could Trump’s defense team claim that he would not receive a fair trial without their depositions under oath?
There are so many ways Trump’s lawyers can complicate this and make his political opponents look stupid. That works very well to his advantage in his court challenges as well as the election.
Democrats are just plain stupid. You do not give Trump more media time. He will outmaneuver you. He may suck at many things, but he is a brilliant marketer. Bad press is good press for Trump.
What works in the primary may not work in the general.
You’re right, RFK Jr could win in the General in 0-24, Senescent Joe won’t, mostly because by November 2024 he’ll be Decomposing Joe (Please, No Threats!, No knowledge of Threats! No knowledge of knowledge of threats! (but playing the Perry Mason Murder Mystery Game, who would have the most to gain from a Senescent Joe “Transitioning” to Decomposing Joe? Well Duh, Common-Law Harris-Willie-Brown, and Calvin Loathsome.)
Just a country doctor who’s seen lots of 80 year old Parkinson’s patients.
Frank
Trump’s support is increasing while Biden’s is decreasing. Seems like it’s working to Trump’s advantage. It always will.
If the Democrats had ignored Trump and censored him in the media, they wouldn’t have a problem. But they are a bunch of dolts and here we are.
The Democrats will elect Trump in 2024 at they rate they are going. Nearly everything the Democrats have accused Trump of has turned out to be a lie. Independent voters are aware of this. Now we have all of these cases against Trump specifically to ensure he won’t become president. Do the Democrats realize that the American public is smart enough to see through this ruse? When Trump espouses that there are conspiracies against him, and over time they are revealed to be false and drummed up by his political opponents, don’t the Democrats realize that it gives Trump’s accusations credibility?
Full discloser: Ove the past 15 years I have not voted for a Democrat or Republican for president. All of the options have been abysmal. I am definitely NOT a Trump supporter, but I am an adamant supporter of the rule of law and the equal application of the law to all peoples. Except that the reality is that there are two systems of justice in this country, and we all have a front seat to see the absolute worst examples of this between Trump and Hunter Biden.
Citation for the general?
Ask President Hilary Rodman Clinton
Stephen Michael Stirling posted a link to the poll on his Facebook page.
Link, please.
Under what provision of what law would Trump’s legal team be entitled to depose Hillary, Schiff, Schumer or Pelosi?
They think that because something they believe to be similar happened before and nobody went to prison means that it’s unfair for Trump to be accused today.
Just like the stuff with Hawaii in 1960 relative to the fake electors in 2020.
That argument would demand that no murderers can’t be arrested in 2023 because of OJ Simpson, but I doubt they’d go for that.
Good point, but in addition in this case what came before isn’t similar.
His defense team did not argue that it was legal for him to stab two people in the absence of mitigating circumstances.
Regarding the 1960 Hawaii precedent, there were an alternate slate of electors. And there were absolutely zero people on record who stated that either these alternate electors, or the JFK campaign, committed a crime in providing an alternate slate of electors.
They didn’t commit a crime because a judge ruled the electors could go forward (even after the safe harbor date) while a legitimate recount was being finished.
“I wonder if it will create a constitutional crisis for Trump’s legal team to depose Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi to get them on the record that their rhetoric was all lies. Could Trump’s defense team claim that he would not receive a fair trial without their depositions under oath?”
Depositions in criminal cases are governed by Fed.R.Crim.P. 15. https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2017-05/Criminal%20Rule%2015.%20Depositions.pdf A party may move that a prospective witness be deposed in order to preserve testimony for trial. The court may grant the motion because of exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice. Rule 15(a)(1). The scope and manner of the deposition examination and cross-examination must be the same as would be allowed during trial. Rule 15(e)(2). A criminal case deposition is not a discovery device.
Why would Team Trump want to preserve testimony of Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi for trial? What are the exceptional circumstances? Is any of them likely to be unavailable to the defense for testimony in person at trial?
Or, his best legal defense is that he is a petulant man-child who is unable to accept defeat. That won’t work for Rudy and the rest for whom it will be easier to show they knew Trump lost but were doing his bidding.
Do you have to do a Google search to come up with these delusions or do they come to you naturally?
Clinton conceded immediately in 2016.
OK, Nige-bot, I understand Robot-School has different rules, but we Humans are required to “Show your Work”
I know that “45” says he called Hillary Rodman and she congratulated “Them” on “Their” Victory (I think “45” thought “they” meant the whole MAGA movement, but……..)
But please show documentation of her Concession Speech, you know, the ones losing Human candidates make?? Because all I can find is…https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Hilary+clinton+claims+she+won&docid=603523379926824982&mid=3F8DC62C507B6CB479ED3F8DC62C507B6CB479ED&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
Frank
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501425243/watch-live-hillary-clinton-concedes-presidential-race-to-donald-trump#:~:text=for%20all%20Americans.%22-,%22This%20is%20not%20the%20outcome%20we%20wanted%20or%20worked%20so,Yorker%20Hotel%20in%20Midtown%20Manhattan.
Jeezus, you really never have played Chess have you? (Hey, my Mom grew up In E. Germany, she grew up playing Chess, I grew up playing Chess) You just fell into my trap (First Rule of Chess, OK there’s like a Hundred “First Rules of Chess”) “When you don’t know who the Sucker is, it’s you” (OK, more applicable with Poker..) So if she conceded the day after.
WHYTHEFUCKDIDSHESAYITWASSTOLENLATER!?!?!?!?!?
Sorry, Cranky/Ass-hololic Frank there.
Yeah, she said the Erection was Stolen (Hilary Rodman’s had a long history of Stolen Erections)
Frank
Very good point?
Because whining that your election was stolen isn’t at all the same as claiming to have won it?
Losers always say the election was stolen for one reason or another… the lines were too long, the debates were unfair, a third-party candidate named Perot split the vote, an ad was defamatory and mean about some sort of fast ships, my Alaskan VP choice turned out to be retarded, Comey told everyone I was basically a criminal… but no matter how many ways the election was stolen and the winner therefore illegitimate, the actual results of the actual voting were honored and the loser conceded… until Trump.
Hillary never said she won the vote, only that she should’ve won the vote if only Trump hadn’t been so mean.
You can even falsely claim you won it so long as you don’t act on that claim and attempt to change the outcome.
They were trying to get electors to change their votes.
Hollywood even did a big campaign
Are you a total ‘tard?
Trying to get people to change their voted is called advocacy.
How have you all gotten so stupid that you can’t tell advocacy from racketeering?
(Some states allow their electors to vote their conscience.)
They were trying to change the outcome.
And it was legal.
John Podesta sought to change the outcome.
David,
Those two statements are not necessarily in conflict
Calling him illegitimate and conceding I agree are compatible.
But “rejecting the election results” and “conceding” are pretty much opposites.
Oh the lolz. Thank you.
Why would Trump accept the results of the election?
It’s not about him accepting the results of the election, it’s about him illegally conspiring to change the results of the election.
Then, he was impeached for asking the Ukraine
You mean extorting.
And of course there is Nancy Pelosi. Her incessant nagging and the toxic nature of her rhetoric will come back to bite her in the ass.
You just can’t help a bit of casual sexism.
Illegallty how?>
Bribery?
Threats of criminal violence?
Perjury?
Paying someone to create a fake intelligence dossier, and then reporting it as a legal expense?
Tampering with evidence?
It is not extortion by any reasonable sense of the word.
For those of you with Senescent Joe 5 second attention spans, here’s the “Money Shot” from the Jimmuh Cartuh Interview.
“There’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election. And I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf,”
Frank
Why is everyone here amd in the news reporting the grand jury returned indictments when that’s impossible?
They know that’s impossible since it’s a Special Grand Jury with only investigative powers.
If they know that the grand jury didn’t return an indictment but are fraudulently claiming so to corruptly harm Trumps campaign, are they committing felonies?
Somin and not guilty and all these others are willfully speaking democracy harming lies are committing a fraud felony crime.
Please, drop it, I’m going to get a closed head injury from the face palming if you don’t.
The special grand jury was LAST YEAR. It issued its report and was dissolved back in January.
This was a different grand jury!
Oh okay, thanks I was conflating the two.
But since it wasn’t intentional I avoided committing a felony, so *WHEW* Had I know they weren’t the same and still made the comment I could wind up in some DC J6 Gulag for life and some Jamacain Judge screaming how I worship a man who should be behind bars at me like she did Nanna and Pawpaw.
Oh, wouldn’t that be nice! You could put your Static Cling on your fellow felons instead of us.
Is that as true as everything else you have said, BCD?
Hey not guilty when I was informed I was conflating the facts, I expressed my gratitude.
Wouldn’t it be nice if you had half as much integrity? Also don’t pretend I didn’t catch you in a bald faced deranged lie, huh Mr. Self Defense Suicide By Cop?
lol oopsie doodles
BCD, some of us investigate facts before posting comments. Try it sometime.
George Washington couldn’t tell a lie.
Donald Trump cannot tell the truth.
BravoCharlieDelta cannot tell the difference.
Lol stop lying. Wow, have you no shame?
BCD, being accused by you of having no shame is akin to being called ugly by a bullfrog.
The MAGA world keeps making the same mistake when they analogize to Clinton (and others) who accused Trump of colluding with Russia in 2016 and claiming the election as a result was illegitimate.
That’s an expression of an opinion, no different than expressing the opinion that 2020 was rigged against Trump by dead people voting, etc. The difference is Trump then attempted to steal the election by pressuring state officials/DOJ/Pence and creating fake electors. Had Trump done none of this after spouting his conspiracy theories, he would be in the clear. And likewise had Clinton done what Trump did instead of just spouting conspiracy theories, she’d be in deep shit.
“The difference is Trump then attempted to steal the election by pressuring state officials/DOJ/Pence and creating fake electors.”
You just convicted Trump without a trial. Well done!
Are you contesting that Trump tried to steal the election?
Yes.
The evidence has not been presented to a jury. It has not been argued in court. And there have been no legal decisions on the matter to date as it relates to Trump and the charges presented against him.
In the United States, you are presumed innocent at the start of your trial. You seem to have forgotten that or refuse to accept that’s the way the court system works.
Forget about court and whether a crime was committed. Do you think Trump tried to steal the election?
No. He tried to fight back against the fraud we all saw go on.
No.
If Trump was trying to steal the election, he sucked ass at it. He is significantly more conniving than what he displayed when he was “trying to steal the election”. He is a billionaire real estate investor with assets across the globe. You get very savvy at beating the system and doing things that may be very questionable when you get to that level.
Trump’s attempt at stealing the election should be viewed as the most incompetent thing he’s ever done.
Steal it? No. Try to preserve his presidency for another term out of desperation and under the delusion it was a conspiracy against him? Very likely.
That’s another way of saying he tried to steal the election (you don’t need intent, a delusion suffices – forgetting about the legal case).
I thought Democrats patented “how to steal an election”. Did the patent expire?
Poor Bumble. Nobody will play with him.
Trump sucked ass at basically everything in his Presidency (see: getting rid of the ACA, wall, infrastructure week). I’m not sure why you think he’d be good at this.
He got rid of the Unaffordable Care Act?? funny, I keep getting Emails from “Healthcare.gov” telling me how great it is.
and the “Wall” I don’t get it, I thought he didn’t build the wall? you wanted him to build the wall? But hey, thank god Parkinsonian Joe was (literally) erected into the Oval Orifice and they finally came up with a Covid shot, no way an idiot like “45” could get that done.
Seriously, are you Trig Palin??
Frank
We’ll award you a big “woosh!” on this one.
Indeed, he did not actually do any of the things I mentioned despite promising to do so because he was really bad at being President, which was my whole point.
The string of bankruptcies to his name may call your ranking scheme into question.
Now I know you’re not a Shyster. Bankruptcies have nothing to do with whether your successfull or not (None myself, at first I was too poor to go bankrupt, now I’m too rich) seem to recall going Bankrupt made it easier for a business to get loans. And if it is a bad thing President “No Comment”‘s run up more debt in 2+ years than every previous POTUS in 230
Frank
“The evidence has not been presented to a jury. It has not been argued in court. And there have been no legal decisions on the matter to date as it relates to Trump and the charges presented against him.”
Not true. In a detailed opinion regarding the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, United States District Judge David Carter on March 28, 2022 opined, “Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0_10.pdf p. 36. The judge further opined, “Based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” Id., at 40.
Granted, these findings were made in a civil lawsuit brought by John Eastman in which the standard of proof was a preponderance of evidence rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applicable to criminal prosecutions. It is inaccurate to say, though, that “there have been no legal decisions on the matter to date as it relates to Trump and the charges presented against him.”
Good point.
You should explain that to Gozer the Gozarian because he’s been talking about the “corrupt Biden family” when Hunter Biden is the only member of that family to have been charged with anything.
And he has not been convicted.
You can’t steal something you already won, see the OJ case.
OK, maybe not the best example, but like the great Sony Bono said,
“This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles. We’re stealing it back.”
that’s all “45” was doing, Senescent Joe (OK, Senescent Joe doesn’t know anything, his numerous lackeys) stole the 2020 erection, “45” was just “stealing it back”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBL-gVSJp2I
Frank
No, he expressed an opinion about Trump.
Wow, imagine if Hillary Rodman Clinton had classified Information on an unsecured home server!!!!!!!!!
Or Pence had classified information at his house.
Well, I am glad they didn’t hang him.
… he said as he didn’t comment on the common treatment of Clinton and Pence, which blows out of the water the theory that Clinton got special treatment.
She did get “Special” treatment (Like Hunter “I fucked my dead brothers Widow, and my bastard daughter had to take me to court to get me to pay child support” Biden) in the sense that “45” knew charging her was a losing ish-yew, and anyway, Attorney General Comey said she didn’t do anything worth prosecuting.
Frank “and that’s the Truth, Pffttt!”
Let’s break the Hillary server situation down. It’s damning in its swampiness.
When the server was discovered, what did Hillary do? Her first legal maneuver, which was a lie, was that the server was only used by her and Bill for family things. Why did she say this? Because husband/wife conversations are protected. Well, that defense fell apart for her quickly.
Secondly, she then sent the contents of the server to her attorneys. Why? It was an attempt to secure it under attorney-client privilege. That collapsed quickly once it was determined that there was secret information on that server.
The contents of the server were never handed over to anyone for forensic evaluation to see if it was compromised or any other very important details. Her attorneys only handed over emails, the entire server was intentionally kept away from anyone to ensure no one would ever know what was on that server.
Then, every single person who was involved with that server was asked to be deposed by the FBI but they WERE ALL GRANTED IMMUNITY!!!
The server administrator intentional violated a Congressional subpoena, erased, and then secure-erased the servers and destroyed all backups. He too was given immunity for making statements to the FBI.
I have worked in IT for over 35 years in various regulated entities such as financial and pharmaceutical firms. If I had done what that IT server administrator did, I would be in federal prison for at least 25 years. The “rest of us” go to jail for the things that Hillary and her ilk did. I know this because I have to navigate the regulatory compliance every day. It’s one of the reasons that I think the whole email server thing was a travesty of justice, and it played out in front of the public.
Hillary was guilty. Hence her posturing and eventual destruction of evidence that could have jeopardized her and most likely her entire family.
But you’re okay with this.
I’m OK with Comey’s investigation concluding there was no intent of wrongdoing. You are free to believe in the nonsense you just spouted.
Jesus, you are a partisan hack with no respect for the rule of law.
You are the problem.
The partisan hacks are those who think Comey is part of the Deep State out to get Trump.
I said nothing about Comey.
But you demonstrated through your comments on this article that you are a card-carrying partisan hack with no respect for the rule of law. I stand by my assessment that you are part of the problem.
All I said was I accept Comey’s conclusions. Why is doing so an act of partisan hackery instead a reasonable position based on the investigation of an impartial man?
“You are free to believe in the nonsense you just spouted.”
You forgot that part, hack. I challenge you to refute what I wrote with something other than delusional rhetoric.
Your claims establish intent. Comey concluded otherwise. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to characterize your claims as nonsense thanks to the investigation of an impartial man.
Comey stole federal documents and gave them to his friend Benjamin Whittes to leak.
Comey also orchestrated the meeting to disclose the Trump dossier to Trump and leaked the meeting to CNN to get the dossier out into the public zeitgeist.
And Comey is a Bush Republican whose firing prompted the Mueller investigation…Trump is a clown!!
Didn’t realize FBI directors had prosecutorial powers. Guess I’m forgetting all of the previous indictments filed by FBI directors.
Well Frank, if a Federal Elite makes an assertion, well it might as well come from God’s own mouth for Josh here.
So you are a complete sucker.
Then maybe you should stick to opining on IT issues, rather than legal issues, because your legal analysis is terrible.
Opinions are like assholes, Asshole, because your legal Anal-lysis sounds like what you’d get if you bred a Kennedy and a Biden, had them smoke crack for 20 years, and then waited until they were 80, in other words, like our current POTUS.
Frank
The contents of the server were never handed over to anyone for forensic evaluation to see if it was compromised or any other very important details. Her attorneys only handed over emails, the entire server was intentionally kept away from anyone to ensure no one would ever know what was on that server.
In other words, they did exactly what they were supposed to up until that point.
Find the government records and send those to the government.
The server administrator intentional violated a Congressional subpoena, erased, and then secure-erased the servers and destroyed all backups. He too was given immunity for making statements to the FBI.
That’s a fancy way of saying he had been instructed (legally and properly) to delete all the emails a long time ago… and didn’t do his job.
He then illegally carried out the deletion after the subpoena showed up for stuff we was already supposed to have deleted.
I have worked in IT for over 35 years in various regulated entities such as financial and pharmaceutical firms. If I had done what that IT server administrator did, I would be in federal prison for at least 25 years. The “rest of us” go to jail for the things that Hillary and her ilk did. I know this because I have to navigate the regulatory compliance every day. It’s one of the reasons that I think the whole email server thing was a travesty of justice, and it played out in front of the public.
So you’re presumably also aware that those regulated firms make it a practice to do things like automatically delete emails they aren’t legally required to keep after a period so that they don’t later get subpoenaed and potentially get them in trouble.
Exactly what Clinton (and her lawyers) instructed the IT guy to do.
Hillary was guilty. Hence her posturing and eventual destruction of evidence that could have jeopardized her and most likely her entire family.
So if one of your subordinates didn’t do their job, and then tried to cover their ass (and not let you find out) by doing something illegal, should you go to jail as well?
Pressuring officials is no crime.
alternate electors were not considered a crime in 1960, and no statute adopted by Congress since then criminalized it.
Pressuring officials to change an outcome you know is legitimate is a crime.
Au contraire. Corruptly attempting to obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding of Congress, as well as conspiring to do so, are criminalized by 18 U.S. Code § 1512, subsections (c)(2) and (k), enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
How does that apply to alternate electors?
Don’t you think fradulent electors are attempting to influence an official meeting of Congress? I do.
What statute defines alternate electors are corrupt?
Given the historical background of Sarbanes-Oxley, it is implausible it applied to criminalize the practice of alternate electors, which was only not a crime in 1960, but was expressly sanctioned by a judge!
“Alternate electors” is a legal fiction. Someone claiming to be an elector without having followed the procedures specified in the Electoral Count Act, as it existed on January 6, 2021, is a liar and a criminal.
(The Electoral Count Act was amended in December 2022. The procedures prior to amendment can be found at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12 .)
The governor of each state was required by federal law “as soon as practicable” after the “final ascertainment” of the appointment of the electors, or “as soon as practicable” after the “final determination of any controversy or contest” concerning such election under its statutory procedure for election contests, to send to the Archivist of the United States by registered mail and under state seal, “a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed,” including the names and numbers of votes for each person for whose appointment as elector any votes were given (3 U.S.C. §6)
After the electors have voted in each state, they were required to make and sign six certificates of their votes containing two distinct lists, one being the votes for President and the other the votes for Vice President. The law instructed the electors to attach to these lists a certificate furnished to them by the governor; to seal those certificates and to certify on them that these are all of the votes for President and Vice President; and then to send one certificate to the President of the Senate, and two certificates to the secretary of state of their state (one to be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate). On the day after their meeting, the electors were to forward by registered mail two of the certificates to the Archivist of the United States (one to be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate), and one to the federal judge in the district where the electors have assembled (3 U.S.C. §§9,10,11).
At the first meeting of Congress, the Archivist of the United States was required to transmit to the two houses every certificate received from the governors of the states (3 U.S.C. §6).
Absent certification by the governor and transmission by the Archivist of the certificate received from the governor, there was no authority for any elector’s vote to be counted.
“Stop the steal” was the Big Lie of November 2020 to January of 2021. “Alternate electors” is the same kind of Big Lie.
Love how the Marxist Stream Media is in a tither over how a Jaw-Jaw “45” (we don’t use that “other” name in Jaw-Jaw) trial would have “Camera’s in the Courtroom”!!!
Yeah, right, so the whole nation can see the Legal Genii of the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. See, I live there, so I get to watch all the time, but for first time viewers, you didn’t stumble into a 1950’s “Amos & Andy” rerun, this is one of the more recent Extra-Points they’ve effed up. (and the link references another murder case overturned, it’s like a friggin Roosh-un Nesting Doll…
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/us/claud-tex-mciver-wife-murder-conviction-overturned-georgia-supreme-court/index.html
Frank
They probably have a whole list of Democratic State Attorney Generals lined up to seek their own indictments of Trump if the current ones fall through. At least until the 2024 election.
Must be inconvenient when you’ve committed so many crimes that you can’t even keep track of all the jurisdictions that might want to prosecute you.
Like it must be inconvenient when your wife’s fucked so many guys you can’t even keep track of all the juris-dick-ins she might have fucked guys in. Thought this was a legal blog. Let me know when “45” gets convicted of something.
Frank
Why all this wild anger from the Trump cultists in these comments? It’s because Trump won’t get away with it. See, that’s always been one of the two founts of MAGA bliss.
First (obviously) is his entertainment value, because politics for today’s Right is purely an entertainment consumer product. But second to that (and allied with it) is that Trump could get away with anything. Boorish behavior, brat-child acting-out, crude lying and a lifelong history of sleazy scams or outright fraud – yet Trump walked away every time without consequence. That alone made the cultists dizzy with happiness.
He tried to shake down the president of Ukraine for personal gain, but suffered no lasting impact. His administration was a cesspool of influence peddling, conflicts of interest, and ignoring ethical restraint for sport, yet he never bothered hiding the corruption. Trump brazenly tried to steal an election using the crudest of tactics, always confident he was beyond the reach of law. Seeing that, the MAGA faithful swooned with joy.
To them, Trump is the image of a perfect being : Beyond the restraint of propriety, decency, or honesty. Freed from constrictions of law, reason, logic or fact. Proudly stupid. Proudly shameless. Proudly contemptuous of the rules others follow.
But now? Jail time. No wonder our Right-types shriek with anguish and rage…
I’m already planning on selling some Trump mugshot schwag.
Nelson Mandela, that black chick on that bus, Cheech and Chong, and other sorts of icons and legends have suffered under the boot of the State.
This is going to make him a legend.
Yep; look how they keep bragging about ticket sales and ratings for Trump events, as if any of that has anything to do with anything.
You’re right, not like people showing up matters in Presidential Erections (certainly didn’t in 2020, how’s Sleepy going to win in 0-24 when all those Dead peoples have to show up in person? (OK, just fine in ATL and PHI, but overall?)
Frank
People showing up matters as much as voting.
IOW it doesn’t. Not with the Ruby Freemans of the world counting ballots in secret and then getting Presidential medals for it.
Careful; Rudy Giuliani is about to go into bankruptcy for saying that. Of course, you’re a nobody so I doubt she’d bother to sue you.
Rudy spends more money on condoms than you did on your house. (Hey, or my house, Rudy’s a “Man of the People”, but he’s also a “Man” if you get my drift*)
Frank
* and had the Prostrate “Big Casino”, man I wish I had his Urologist.
She did count ballots in secret after they lied to the poll watchers about halting counting though.
That’s a fact.
Jesus. You’re complaining about influence peddling with Trump? A cesspool?
Please define for us what types of influence peddling define a cesspool and when it’s “nothing to see here”.
Trump is guilty of a whole bunch of that shit but your double standards render your judgement of his guilt not credible.
How about two billion dollars from the Saudis? You’re act is getting a bit tired, Bevis. You love to whine about double standards, but only given a subject you’re comfortable with. Otherwise you’ve got those blinders shut tight.
Every week of every year there was worldwide Trump Organization business going on inside the White House and yet you never gave the slightest shit. The day Trump became president, Mar-a-Largo doubled its membership fees and anyone who ponied-up could pitch to the president. You never cared. The Saudis want to lobby against a law in Washington? They bought 500 rooms in the DC Trump hotel. But there weren’t week & weeks of stories about that as with little Hunter Biden. People barely noticed. You certainly didn’t.
The government of Qatar thought the U.S. position on their feud with the Saudis was caused by their refusal to provide business funding to Jared Kushner. I don’t know if that’s true or false, but it’s a damn sight more credible than the bullshit you’ve produced on Joe Biden so far. Not that credibility is an issue with you.
Let’s talk Turkey. Trump said this :
“I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump said in 2015. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two,”
So did that make a difference when Trump threw U.S. foreign policy into panic by stabbing our Kurdish allies in the back? No one can say for certain, but this isn’t a theory formed by faux-whistleblowers, transparent spin, and the forever deferred promise of a big reveal yet to come.
I can produce a dozen fact-based reports about entanglements between the Trump Administration and special interests while you tell your handful of stories about Hunter’s money-grubbing ways. Then produce a new dozen while you repeat those Hunter stories again. Then produce a new dozen while you parrot a third round.
Hell, I don’t even need to raise the ugly record of Trump appointees for the first five or six rounds..
Here’s a really funny one for you free of charge, Bevis :
Remember when people were astounded by Trump’s enthusiastic praise of Putin during the ’16 campaign? No one then knew Trump was secretly negotiating a massive business deal with Kremlin officials. The talks continued right up to the eve of the election. Trump Org officials discussed greasing the deal with a Putin bribe. He was to be gifted the choicest penthouse suite.
So when Trump wildly gushed over Putin, it was with these secret negotiations in mind. Right during the election season. As he campaigned for President of the United States.
As the song goes:
Takin’ care of business, every day. Takin’ care of business, every way.
Fortunately Trump is going to give a Major News Conference in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Monday to completely exonerate himself wrt this Georgia case. Apparently there will be a “large, complex, detailed, but irrefutable” report…
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4153153-trump-claims-report-will-result-in-complete-exoneration-in-georgia/
…that he has inexplicably concealed for the past 3 years.
Great! so why are you worried?
OK, besides the fact that you’re a little man, in a little house, who supposedly has a little law degree (HT Reverand Kirkland) and handles little cases?
Oh, and has a little (Redacted)
and maybe having a name that doesn’t translate as “Never Potent” (Names usually start from some notable characteristic)
Frank
The Supreme Court is quite capable of distinguishing a Trump appeal from “Gamble” and indeed, any other precedent, so let’s see how robust the defence of dual sovereignty will be. You’d think that Thomas, as a states’ rights man, would keep it, but if he does perhaps Ginni won’t be nice to him.
Act 156 from that Affirmative Action DA:
“by unlawfully “decertifying the Election, or whatever the correct legal remedy is, and announce the true winner”.
LOL Trump asserting to do whatever the correct legal remedy is PROOF he was trying to illegally do the legal thing!!
You fucking deranged idiots really fell for this one. You should’ve known it was going to be a trainwreck just by looking at and listening to the people doing the trainwrecking.
Serious legal jeopardy guys! They got him cold admitting he wanted to do the proper legal remedy FELONIOUSLY!
The only thing she’s qualified to do is eat a banana while swinging in a jungle from tree to tree.
It is telling that Prof. Volokh occasionally dips into the comments to respond to a fan, but never expresses any concern or object to the rampant racism, gay-bashing, and other forms of bigotry found at his blog every day.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your old-timey, ugly thinking could carry anyone in an America that has moved past right-wingers and their failed thinking.
That actually took several thousand years of Evil-lution to umm, Evil-ove. Ever try to eat a banana while swinging from a Vine?? just ask George of the Jungle.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=george+of+the+jungle+theme+youtube&view=detail&mid=8D8E11DF37A3A30AF4EF8D8E11DF37A3A30AF4EF&FORM=VIRE
Frank
Feel free to say anything at all about this rampant bigotry at any time, Prof. Volokh!
Same for the other Volokh Conspirators — does one of you have enough character to address the incessant bigotry at this blog?
Carry on, clingers.
OK, “Coach” not sure why a Convicted Sex Offender would be commenting on a “Legal” blog, but you were a “Crackerjack” Defensive Coach (note to self, if a Coach ever asks you to go to his office for a “Box of Crackerjacks” politely decline) But, only 17 days until Penn State vs West Virginia, in State College, C’mon (Man!) you gotta have some opinions about that one….
Frank “SEC! SEC!”
Utter-failure-in-life BCD calls someone else an “affirmative action” person.
Also, utter-failure-in-life BCD does not understand that indictments are not about “PROOF.” They are accusations. The proof is for trial.
Do you think a candidate asking the Secretary of State to pursue his legal remedies for a contested election is evidence of a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election fraudulently?
Yes or no.
Since Trump knew that there was in fact no “legal remedy” or “contested election” (in a legal sense), no grounds to “decertify” anything and no lawful basis for any of it, yes. By itself it would not, of course, prove anything at all. But, of course, it’s not by itself. And
If the state establishes that Trump knew he had lost and decided to engage in a multipronged attempt to get himself declared the winner anyway, and did so in agreement with others, then any act related to that, no matter how small or innocuous by itself, is sufficient. The purpose of the overt act requirement is to prevent the criminalization of pure talk, not to establish that the individual overt acts are especially bad.
You’d better up your Valium or you won’t make it to the election next year.
as the Not-Late, Great Judge Judy said about a million times,
“Don’t tell me what (He/She/They) Knew!, that involves an operation of someone’s mind that you cannot know, tell me what they Said, Did, etc”
Seriously? you’re supposedly a Shyster and Judge Judy would throw you out on your ass.
Frank
He’s a well respected man:
And he likes his own backyard
And he likes his fags the best
‘Cause he’s better than the rest
And his own sweat smells the best
And he hopes to grab his fathers loot
When pater passes on
So you believe that asking for the correct legal remedy isn’t suggestive that Trump thought he had a correct legal remedy?
Is when you couple it with his conspirators Tweets about wanting “fair elections” that it taints his motive?
What about the other acts, like “watch this public hearing!”, or “make sure every legal vote counts”?
When you, David, put those fact patterns together you see a fraudulent conspiracy to overturn a knowingly lawful election?
He may thought that in which case he is delusional. Or, he may know he lost and committed a crime. Either way, it ought to be disqualified for office. And Giuliani knew Trump lost. His tweet about “fair elections” and “legal votes” is an overt act to a crime.
His tweet about “fair elections” and “legal votes” is an overt act to a crime.
lmao listen to yourself!
“We must have free & fair elections in GA & a this is our only path to ensuring every legal vote is counted” is an overt act because 1) Guiliani knew Trump lost (i.e., the Tweet was an intentional lie), and 2) Guiliani followed the overt act by lying to state officials that Trump won.
Hey everybody,
heard you missed me, I’m back!
just like with our House and Senates of Sexual Congress,
“Kind & Gentle” Frank’s on “Summer Recess”
“Cranky, Ass-hololic Frank” is filling in
please send any comments to Idontgiveafuck.com
Frank “Trig Palin? whatever happened to that Mongoloid?”
The Bigot Is Back!
Have you been at least giving the boys you groom PrEP?
That’s “Dr” Bigot thank you very little,
and I prefer the other “B-word”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNz9FgNEnI
Frank
Prof. Somin deserves credit for addressing the most important legal issues of the day (and the week, month, and year).
Your character makes you better than this blog, Prof. Somin . . . your libertarian instincts and disdain for xenophobia and other forms of right-wing intolerance make you a poor fit with this faux libertarian blog, too.
You could easily find better professional playmates.
The comments on this and Somin’s other post today is like watching a tennis match with all the same back and forth.
Four indictments. Which case is first to the post for a trial?
By the way, Meadows has filed to dismiss the case against him or to move it to federal court.
Probably Miami. The other 3 “Jurisdictions” (I guess the Monkey House at the Zoo is technically a “Jurisdiction”) run on
“CPT” I’d tell you what that means but then the Reverend Sandusky would want some private time with me. Let’s just say, the other 3 cases will be
“Shufflin’s threw’s the Courts” for quite some time.
Frank
“Four indictments. Which case is first to the post for a trial?”
I expect that will be the D.C. trial. The Special Counsel has requested that jury selection take place in December of 2023, with trial to begin on January 2, 2024. We should know within two weeks. A pretrial conference is scheduled for August 28, 2023.
If you believe many of the commentators on this post, the Feds have been persecuting good law-abiding people for years. The Don does nothing more than express his personal opinion, as is evety American’s right, that things would be better if so-and-so were to dissappear. What could possibly be illegal about simply expressing an opinion? The soldier does nothing more than exercise his constitutional right to bear arms, and then he just moves his forefinger a little bit. What could possibly be wrong with that? Bearing arms is every bit as much a constitutional right as expressing an opinion. And so what if somebody moves his finger a little bit?
You wouldn’t believe the things these absurd indictments say. Murder! That’s right, murder! Murder conspiracy! All for just exercising ones first and second amendment rights just like any other citizen. Do these people, these crazy bungling messed-up feds, have anything better to do then to harrass honest citizens just because they happen to be Italian and happen to like to form clubs to help protect ordinary folk?
Creative writing exercise?
But dude, yes that’s what they do.
Nice comment Y, but pick on some other ethnic group.
After all, you never know just how dangerous the highway is.
Or maybe the Don said, “Shoot the rat and dump his body in the river, or whatever the correct legal remedy is.” As BravoCharlieDelta will assure us, only a deranged person would think that this statement is evidence of a conspiracy to commit murder. After all, the Don explicitly asked for the correct legal remedy to be applied; how could that possibly be illegal?
“But some of the charges raise technical legal issues I prefer to leave to commentators with greater relevant expertise.”
“I am sure there are lots of newly minted RICO experts commenting away on Twitter and elsewhere. But I’m not going to pretend to be one of them, and so will have to leave this issue to others.”
“I will leave that to relevant experts, as well.”
“But this too is an issue best left to those with greater expertise.”
“I must defer to the assessment of commentators with greater expertise.”
I applaud Prof. Somin’s trolling of all the Dunning–Kruger Law School graduates here.
You ever notice “RICO” was the gangster in “Little Ceasar”?? what a coincidence that the acronym for the law has the same name.
It’s a slur against Italians.
THERE IS NO MAFIA!!!!!! TONY SOPRANO WAS IN THE WASTE MANAGEMENT BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!! (as a MOTT my favorite Soprano’s character was Hesh, man, when Tony stiffed him and did that “Da Rent! Da Rent!” Insult, he’s lucky I wasn’t there at Holsten’s (Best Onion Rings in the State IMO), but of course Tony was a Boss, so maybe he gets a pass on that one…..
Frank
What the hell were you doing in Bloomfield NJ?
“You ever notice ‘RICO’ was the gangster in ‘Little Ceasar’?? what a coincidence that the acronym for the law has the same name.”
It may not have been a coincidence. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rico-suave/
The trivial minority’s crusade against Donald Trump seems to be having the right effect. When Republicans were in 1994 asked (by Gallup) to evaluate President Clinton’s ethics, 33% of such Republicans rated Clinton’s ethics excellent or good. When Democrats were in 2018 asked to evaluate President Trump’s ethics, 11% of such Democrats rated Trump’s ethics as excellent or good. When Republicans were recently asked to evaluate President Biden’s ethics, only 6% of such Republicans rated Biden’s ethics as excellent or good. Actions like those in Georgia accrue to Biden’s disadvantage.
Similarly, the perception that the minority is engaging in frivolous — rather than productive — behavior is up, even among those who self-identify as Democrats. In this instance, actions such as those in Georgia appear to accrue to the disadvantage of Congressional Democrats.
Justice is best served by allowing the zealots to speak: it isn’t easy to create a martyr in the absence of an unjust, malevolent, and huffish bête noire.
A careful study of the DA’s announcement reveals too much. That DA can’t keep her duper’s delight silent. Study the face carefully, you’ll see the real truth behind this indictment.
https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/1691612088005693815
I am sure there are lots of newly minted RICO experts commenting away on Twitter and elsewhere.
Before COVID, a certain federal judge, whom I generally like, had the practice of hearing multiple motions on the same afternoon. So we would show up and have to listen to 5 to 10 other cases before he got to us. And the criminal ones always went first.
One time, a criminal defendant was allocuting, which basically means plead guilty and go into factual detail about what he did. The defendant was a teenager, maybe 17. Had been in a drug gang. After describing what he did, judge asks the prosecutor, “anything else I need to ask him?” “Yes judge, ask him if he was a member of a RICO enterprise.” Judge: “were you a member of a RICO enterprise?”
The kid had a look like, WTF did he say? His lawyer whispered in his ear, and he said, “Yes judge.”
RICO is an enormously complex statute. How a jury can understand it is a mystery to me. Judges hate it. Query whether the prosecutor made a wise decision to include it.
…and of course this is the state statute which I would assume is somewhat different than the federal statute that started this thing called “RICO”.
Hey guys, fair warning. Don’t go to X right now. There is all sorts of felonious illegal evidence of the 2020 steal flying around illegally harming our Sacred Democracies. Videos, newspaper clippings, camera footage, illegal interpretations of these, illegal thoughts being expressed and all kinds of other Anti-Democrat criminal activity. Someone even said, illegally so, that the DA was covering up the steal! Crime after crime after crime!
Please stay away or you might get indicted.
Hey if I say the election was stolen, do you think Biden will send the FBI to come and murder me too like they did that Utah crippled retiree?
Biden probably wouldn’t, unless paid by a Russian oligarch. “Charles McGonigal [the spearhead of the FBI Crossfire Hurricane probe which led to the impeachment of Donald Trump], by his own admission, betrayed his oath and actively concealed his illicit work at the bidding of a sanctioned Russian oligarch.” https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-special-agent-charge-new-york-fbi-counterintelligence-division-pleads-guilty
I love how you people just make shit up. McGonigal was not the “spearhead of” anything. All he did was forward an email.
Any of you lawyers understand Georgia’s legal power to fire its own prosecutor? Should we expect Georgia Republicans to give that a try? If they do it, is that where the buck stops? Can they get Trump and his conspirators off the hook that way? Or might the U.S. Justice Department take a critical interest in appearance of obstruction, and deprivation of civil rights?
Some quick research turns up this: https://law.georgia.gov/resources/appointment-substitute-prosecutor#main-content
Four district attorneys general recently filed suit seeking to enjoin the scheme. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23894810-boston-v-state-of-georgia-ful-co-sup-ct-final-complaint
I am still reading the complaint.
They should give that a try.