I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…

[George K]

But back to LuFin's point, I doubt getting a Trump-unfriendly jury will be a difficult thing in Fulton County. His attorneys are going to have to be very good at jury selection.

[George K]

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

[Copper]

@George-K said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:

wacko stuff back in 2016...

Lock her up.

[Horace]

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.

[taiwan_girl]

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.

[Jolly]

And...A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich...

[taiwan_girl]

@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.

[jon-nyc]

I think jury nullification is his only chance to be spared on the documents and obstruction charges. And a biased jury is his only chance to be convicted in NY.

The other two are more complicated.

[Jolly]

@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.

[Axtremus]

@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.

[Doctor Phibes]

@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]

@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.

[taiwan_girl]

@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........................

[George K]

@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.

[George K]

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.

[Jolly]

None of the charges are about actual justice. They are political in nature, designed for one purpose.

[George K]

It's interesting to see the differing opinions of McCarthy and Barr. Barr seems to think that there's some there there.

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in I don’t really think they’ll be able to convict Trump…:

None of the charges are about actual justice. They are political in nature, designed for one purpose.

Yes, Trump is as innocent as the day is long.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc 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…:

None of the charges are about actual justice. They are political in nature, designed for one purpose.

Yes, Trump is as innocent as the day is long.

Let's put it this way...There are people in politics guilty of much worse things than Trump. Yet, Trump seems to be the only one worthy of such scrutiny...

[NobodySock]

Let's see, worse than causing an insurrection and an attempted coup to override a fair election. Worse than molesting and raping dozens of women and just grabbing them by the pussy. Worse than lying to America and saying that Covid is nothing to worry about and will just vanish, poof!, while doing nothing in the first critical days of its spread except to keep Chinese from flying to America. Worse than stealing top secret documents and most likely having already sold many of them to Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
Hmmmmm, those people must have done something pretty bad.