I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…
-
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........................
-
@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........................
@taiwan_girl said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:
FOr all his loud complaining, President Trump has yet to present any real evidence that this occurred.
Sorta kinda true...
Many of the cases brought to the courts that supposedly proved election shenanigans were dismissed on technical grounds, and the alleged evidence never saw the inside of a courtroom.
Secondly, he doesn't have to prove anything with respect to these charges. That's the government's job. It's not a crime to deny election results, or even to allege fraud. Even Mrs. Clinton alleges the election was stolen from her.
-
More from McCarthy:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/why-the-fani-willis-case-is-ill-conceived/
But because Willis, like Smith, lacks proof of violence and hence proof of an actual insurrection, she is left groping for a unifying crime that would tie them all to the same conspiracy.
That’s easy, Democrats insist: Trump et al. “conspired to steal the election.” Well, look high and low through the penal law of Georgia if you’d like, but you’ll find no such offense. Notice Democrats never refer to it as “stealing” when Stacey Abrams does it. No matter. The point is: It’s simply not a crime to try to overturn an election through nonviolent means of political and legal pressure. And even if you believe, as I do, that Trump is morally and politically responsible for the violence of January 6, that is not a valid justification for distorting criminal laws in order to convict him. The criminal-justice system is not in the cosmic-justice business. To the contrary, even the worst of the worst criminals are presumed innocent, and the law is geared to make the close calls go the defendant’s way
Willis tries to overcome this inconvenience by invoking RICO — Georgia’s version of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. But RICO is unavailing because the supposed “criminal organization” she alleges in count one is a fiction. The 19 defendants named are not in any way an organization, much less a criminal one. More to the point, the charge falls woefully short of what RICO requires: an association in fact that poses a continuing threat to the public. Here, the loose, scattershot, fleeting union of Trump supporters was going to end by January 20, 2021, one way or another.
To reiterate, the innovation of RICO was to target not the crimes committed by such enterprises as a mafia “family” but rather the participation in an enterprise that seeks to sustain itself over time so it can continue generating money and power through criminal activity. Willis’s 19 defendants were not joined in such an enterprise. They had no interest in being part of a continuing venture. To the contrary, they shared the single, lawful objective to retain Donald Trump in office, even if it took dodgy lawsuits (though when pressed by judges, they usually folded rather than trying fraudulently to prove fraud) and political strong-arming (but not violence). They may have committed crimes in attempting to achieve their lawful objective, and Willis may properly prosecute those. But that doesn’t turn a lawful objective into a criminal conspiracy, much less a RICO conspiracy.
Maybe there is something we don't know?
Now, the fact that Willis lacks a viable conspiracy charge that she can bring against all 19 defendants does not mean she has no viable charges. She may have several, although they should not have been brought as a single case. In the best light to her, she should have brought four cases — although one of those should probably be broken into separate cases, and one of them should be dismissed prior to trial as failing to state a crime.
-
None of the charges are about actual justice. They are political in nature, designed for one purpose.
“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
