I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…
-
I think, regardless of political motivations, the jury will do its best to apply the laws as written, based on the evidence as provided. It's not really their job to care whether the prosecution is politically motivated, and that will be drilled into their head by the judge. It's possible there will be some on the jury who might disregard that instruction, but I don't think it's unlikely that they'll get 12 people on board to think about the case in isolation from any biases that brought it.
-
Anyone here want to be on that jury, if they could? Or any upcoming?
Let me be first to say no. But, hmmm, it could. . . make me famous, I'd go down in history in numerous books, I could write a book or two afterward, interviews, free cookies, and so much more to make me rich (enough) and famous (enough). Now, how do I play this, I mean just as a "what if" it were possible? BRIBES!! I forgot bribes! Man, the money, the lights, the stardom, the complimentary "he almost makes sense" and more!
Fortunately, I'm the only one in the country that thinks like this.
These are indeed great days in America! -
As far as Georgia goes, there are some (I believe Andy McCarthy at NRO) who claim that there's really no crime listed in the indictment(s). All of the allegations are conspiratorial in nature, but for a conspiracy to exist, there has to be a crime at its center. They claim there is not.
I'm not sure I agree with that.
https://themessenger.com/opinion/the-flaw-in-trumps-georgia-indictment
That is what’s so strange about DA Willis’s indictment. She alleges that the 19 people named in her indictment are guilty of conspiracy because they agreed to try to keep Donald Trump in power as president — specifically, to “change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” Maybe they shared such an aim, maybe their 19 minds met regarding that objective, but in and of itself, trying to reverse the result of an election is not a crime. You may have noticed that neither Al Gore nor Stacey Abrams was ever led away in handcuffs.
To be clear, it’s entirely possible that people can perform criminal acts in the pursuit of a lawful objective. If they do, they may be charged with those crimes — and if the crimes are serious, they should be charged. That, however, does not mean their overarching objective was a crime. And again, if you don’t have two or more people agreeing on an objective that is a crime, you don’t have a conspiracy.
Willis tries to get around this inconvenience in two ways, neither of which works.
The first is a tautology: She conclusively asserts, on page 14 of the indictment, that this was a “conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” That is, the lawful objective of changing the election outcome somehow becomes unlawful because she invokes the apparently talismanic word “unlawful.” But there is no crime of unlawfully trying to change an election outcome — not in Georgia law nor any other American law.
Trying to change an election outcome is legal; the end doesn’t become illegal if pursued by illegal means — instead, those illegal means can be charged as crimes. But there is no conspiracy unless the objective itself is clearly a crime. You don’t see prosecutors alleging, say, that defendants were in a “conspiracy to unlawfully” commit murder or robbery. Murder and robbery are crimes. If two or more people agree to commit murder or robbery, that is an agreement to commit a crime — a conspiracy. To the contrary, an agreement to try to reverse the result of an election is not an agreement to commit a crime.
Willis thus turns to her second artifice, the RICO conspiracy charge. RICO is unique in the criminal law because, instead of targeting crimes, it targets entities — associations of people, referred to as enterprises — that generate revenue through the commission of crimes. The offense is not so much the crimes (referred to as the pattern of racketeering activity), but the enterprise (such as a mafia family) that carries out the crimes. A RICO conspiracy is an agreement to participate in such an enterprise — to belong to the group and sustain the group so that it continues to generate power and profits.
That doesn’t fit the Georgia case. Trump and his 18 co-defendants did not intend or desire to belong to a group, or even see themselves as a group. Their objective allegedly was to maintain Trump in power, not to participate in an enterprise. And unlike a RICO enterprise, the 19 defendants had no intention of sustaining their group — if it even was a unified group. Their only objective allegedly was to keep Trump in office. By Jan. 20, 2021, that objective was either going to succeed or fail, but whatever the outcome, the group would then cease to exist as such. By contrast, a real RICO enterprise must be a continuing threat — one that labors to preserve its existence and operations.
The defendants indicted by Willis did not have an overarching agreement to commit a crime, and they were the antithesis of a RICO enterprise. If, as the DA alleges, they committed discrete crimes in the effort to reverse the election result — such as forgery, false statements, solicitation of others to commit felonies, or hacking into election systems — then they should be prosecuted for those crimes.
But an agreement to do something legal — to reverse the result of an election — is not a conspiracy. And if the presumption of innocence means anything, we must presume people are innocent if the prosecutor fails to allege that they agreed to do something that was actually a crime.
-
As far as Georgia goes, there are some (I believe Andy McCarthy at NRO) who claim that there's really no crime listed in the indictment(s). All of the allegations are conspiratorial in nature, but for a conspiracy to exist, there has to be a crime at its center. They claim there is not.
I'm not sure I agree with that.
https://themessenger.com/opinion/the-flaw-in-trumps-georgia-indictment
That is what’s so strange about DA Willis’s indictment. She alleges that the 19 people named in her indictment are guilty of conspiracy because they agreed to try to keep Donald Trump in power as president — specifically, to “change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” Maybe they shared such an aim, maybe their 19 minds met regarding that objective, but in and of itself, trying to reverse the result of an election is not a crime. You may have noticed that neither Al Gore nor Stacey Abrams was ever led away in handcuffs.
To be clear, it’s entirely possible that people can perform criminal acts in the pursuit of a lawful objective. If they do, they may be charged with those crimes — and if the crimes are serious, they should be charged. That, however, does not mean their overarching objective was a crime. And again, if you don’t have two or more people agreeing on an objective that is a crime, you don’t have a conspiracy.
Willis tries to get around this inconvenience in two ways, neither of which works.
The first is a tautology: She conclusively asserts, on page 14 of the indictment, that this was a “conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” That is, the lawful objective of changing the election outcome somehow becomes unlawful because she invokes the apparently talismanic word “unlawful.” But there is no crime of unlawfully trying to change an election outcome — not in Georgia law nor any other American law.
Trying to change an election outcome is legal; the end doesn’t become illegal if pursued by illegal means — instead, those illegal means can be charged as crimes. But there is no conspiracy unless the objective itself is clearly a crime. You don’t see prosecutors alleging, say, that defendants were in a “conspiracy to unlawfully” commit murder or robbery. Murder and robbery are crimes. If two or more people agree to commit murder or robbery, that is an agreement to commit a crime — a conspiracy. To the contrary, an agreement to try to reverse the result of an election is not an agreement to commit a crime.
Willis thus turns to her second artifice, the RICO conspiracy charge. RICO is unique in the criminal law because, instead of targeting crimes, it targets entities — associations of people, referred to as enterprises — that generate revenue through the commission of crimes. The offense is not so much the crimes (referred to as the pattern of racketeering activity), but the enterprise (such as a mafia family) that carries out the crimes. A RICO conspiracy is an agreement to participate in such an enterprise — to belong to the group and sustain the group so that it continues to generate power and profits.
That doesn’t fit the Georgia case. Trump and his 18 co-defendants did not intend or desire to belong to a group, or even see themselves as a group. Their objective allegedly was to maintain Trump in power, not to participate in an enterprise. And unlike a RICO enterprise, the 19 defendants had no intention of sustaining their group — if it even was a unified group. Their only objective allegedly was to keep Trump in office. By Jan. 20, 2021, that objective was either going to succeed or fail, but whatever the outcome, the group would then cease to exist as such. By contrast, a real RICO enterprise must be a continuing threat — one that labors to preserve its existence and operations.
The defendants indicted by Willis did not have an overarching agreement to commit a crime, and they were the antithesis of a RICO enterprise. If, as the DA alleges, they committed discrete crimes in the effort to reverse the election result — such as forgery, false statements, solicitation of others to commit felonies, or hacking into election systems — then they should be prosecuted for those crimes.
But an agreement to do something legal — to reverse the result of an election — is not a conspiracy. And if the presumption of innocence means anything, we must presume people are innocent if the prosecutor fails to allege that they agreed to do something that was actually a crime.
@George-K said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
But an agreement to do something legal — to reverse the result of an election — is not a conspiracy.
If the election results had been reversed, how would the process have looked different from what was done?
-
Seen on Twitter:
The hardest job in America might be the Fulton County DA's.
Think about it.
She must convince a jury that Donald Trump didn't really believe that the same political party that called him a Russian Secret Agent, claimed he had a magic phone to the Kremlin, and hired imaginary hookers to pee on an imaginary bed, wasn't willing to steal an election in 2020.
Good luck with that.
Thank goodness we didn't hear any such wacko stuff back in 2016...
Link to video -
Seen on Twitter:
The hardest job in America might be the Fulton County DA's.
Think about it.
She must convince a jury that Donald Trump didn't really believe that the same political party that called him a Russian Secret Agent, claimed he had a magic phone to the Kremlin, and hired imaginary hookers to pee on an imaginary bed, wasn't willing to steal an election in 2020.
Good luck with that.
Thank goodness we didn't hear any such wacko stuff back in 2016...
Link to video -
The hardest job in America might be the Fulton County DA's.
Think about it.
She must convince a jury that Donald Trump didn't really believe that the same political party that called him a Russian Secret Agent, claimed he had a magic phone to the Kremlin, and hired imaginary hookers to pee on an imaginary bed, wasn't willing to steal an election in 2020.
Good luck with that.
The lack of self awareness of your average Trump hater would have to verge on the insane, if they think their tribe would have been above cheating in the election to beat Trump. I've always believed that, if presented an opportunity, circa 90%+ of Trump haters would have done their part to cheat against him in the election. My hope was always that such opportunities were not present at any large scale.
As for Trump's 'honest beliefs', I assume they'll be talking about specifics beyond a general impression that the election was stolen. Like, whether he honestly believed votes in a specific state were stolen in a specific way.
I'm also not clear about whether all charges hinge on what Trump did or did not believe. I know at least some do.
-
I looked up about how a "grand jury" works. I assume it is basically the same for federal and state.
It is bias towards the prosecution, but they were able to convince the grand jury people that there was probably cause that a crime was committed.
@Mik I agree. I think it would be quite interesting to be on the jury and I hope I would be very open minded with it.
@lu. I agree. It will very difficult to convict him.
QUOTE
A grand jury indictment is the formal charging instrument used by the U.S. Department of Justice to bring federal criminal charges against a defendant. Before federal prosecutors can bring an indictment, they must present their case to a grand jury.If the grand jury finds that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crimes in question, it will issue a “true bill.” This allows federal prosecutors to indict a defendant.
A grand jury is a group of citizens convened by the federal government to determine if probable cause exists to believe that a person committed a federal crime
Federal prosecutors present evidence and live testimony in a grand jury proceeding by issuing grand jury subpoenas. A grand jury subpoena is not issued by the grand jury but by the federal prosecutor assigned to the case.
A party in receipt of a grand jury subpoena is legally compelled to either produce the documents outlined in the subpoena, appear in person, or both.
-
And...A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich...
-
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
And...A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich...
I agree. I believe it is very rare for something to go to a grand jury and not then go to trial.
But I also think that the prosecutors presented enough so that they thought a crime had been committed. And I guess they would have explained that in the grand jury room. That is why I am not sure that the argument that no crime was committed is probably not valid.
-
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
And...A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich...
I agree. I believe it is very rare for something to go to a grand jury and not then go to trial.
But I also think that the prosecutors presented enough so that they thought a crime had been committed. And I guess they would have explained that in the grand jury room. That is why I am not sure that the argument that no crime was committed is probably not valid.
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
And...A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich...
I agree. I believe it is very rare for something to go to a grand jury and not then go to trial.
But I also think that the prosecutors presented enough so that they thought a crime had been committed. And I guess they would have explained that in the grand jury room. That is why I am not sure that the argument that no crime was committed is probably not valid.
The prosecutors are simply after Trump. It's unprecedented in modern American politics and most of the charges are worthy of a banana republic.
It is not good for the country. Want to beat Trump? Beat him at the ballot box.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
And...A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich...
I agree. I believe it is very rare for something to go to a grand jury and not then go to trial.
But I also think that the prosecutors presented enough so that they thought a crime had been committed. And I guess they would have explained that in the grand jury room. That is why I am not sure that the argument that no crime was committed is probably not valid.
The prosecutors are simply after Trump. It's unprecedented in modern American politics and most of the charges are worthy of a banana republic.
It is not good for the country. Want to beat Trump? Beat him at the ballot box.
-
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
And...A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich...
I agree. I believe it is very rare for something to go to a grand jury and not then go to trial.
But I also think that the prosecutors presented enough so that they thought a crime had been committed. And I guess they would have explained that in the grand jury room. That is why I am not sure that the argument that no crime was committed is probably not valid.
The prosecutors are simply after Trump. It's unprecedented in modern American politics and most of the charges are worthy of a banana republic.
It is not good for the country. Want to beat Trump? Beat him at the ballot box.
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Want to beat Trump? Beat him at the ballot box.
-
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Want to beat Trump? Beat him at the ballot box.
President Biden did beat Trump at the ballot box.
@Axtremus said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Want to beat Trump? Beat him at the ballot box.
President Biden did beat Trump at the ballot box.
Trump doesn't think so. I don't, either. Not the electoral college.
Biden may well have won the popular vote.
-
@Axtremus said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Want to beat Trump? Beat him at the ballot box.
President Biden did beat Trump at the ballot box.
Trump doesn't think so. I don't, either. Not the electoral college.
Biden may well have won the popular vote.
@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
Trump doesn't think so
FOr all his loud complaining, President Trump has yet to present any real evidence that this occurred.
"President Trump, what evidence do you have that the election was stolen?
I have the evidence that proves it.
Are you willing to share it?
I don't have to because I know the election was stolen!"
And so the circle goes around and and around. Other than a friend of a friends brother in law's ex wife office colleagues son teacher who heard it from another friend of a friend........................
