fka ftc said:

---

Important to note that the decision on Nixon, per my recollection, was specific to Executive Privilege and not to his physical possession of the tapes but whether he had to provide the tapes to an investigation, with SCOTUS saying Exec Privilege cannot preclude a legit investigation (by Congress if I recall, but would apply to DOJ or other courts).

That's not the set of facts we have here. This is purely about possession of unspecified documents that were ASSUMED to have "national defense information" based on them "having classified markings".

Continuing to point to a very, very weak construct by the DOJ.

---

That was a different Nixon case. Nixon v. GSA is the one to which I referred.

LINK

Nauta has counsel in DC but needed a local rep if I read correctly. And the date was pushed two weeks. Not a big deal in my opinion. Trump lawyers may have had a conflict that prevented them from repping Nauta in Florida.

Good article here.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/16/six-reasons-dojs-legal-case-against-trump-is-seriously-flawed/

fka ftc said:

---

Nauta has counsel in DC but needed a local rep if I read correctly. And the date was pushed two weeks. Not a big deal in my opinion. Trump lawyers may have had a conflict that prevented them from repping Nauta in Florida.

---

That's probably the case here, but it seems like a Trump thing to do to **** this guy.

Thanks for linking (you have quoted from this before, no?).

I think it's probably obvious I tend to agree with the writer's take and assessment, though I am not a lawyer but I do love some history and debate on these topics.

Cannon is going to have some decisions to make.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Nauta has counsel in DC but needed a local rep if I read correctly. And the date was pushed two weeks. Not a big deal in my opinion. Trump lawyers may have had a conflict that prevented them from repping Nauta in Florida.

---

That's probably the case here, but it seems like a Trump thing to do to **** this guy.

---

Cannot say I disagree. Way back I strongly pondered trying to get on The Apprentice but we were still building our business and I had a newborn son. Glad I did not ever sniff such a thing. Trump is absolutely ruthless but I tend to think that makes for a good POTUS when that ruthless is used to support America First, America Great.

Yes I have quoted a little bit from it but since so few people click on the links to read the rest I thought reposting just the link might intrigue them into reading what some of the outstanding questions are.

I still owe you a read on the Dominion stuff. As a lad out of school, I worked in IT controls and audit for a few years, including some projects doing detailed reviews of new software applications for controls / audit trails along with some attack & penetration testing.

My favorite was having to spend considerable time with SAP to get documentation on how the system generated new invoice numbers to ensure no duplicates. An overzealous audit partner with poor understanding of systems would not give up, so I had to produce it to clear his comments. Let's just say SAP was "reluctant" to provide such documentation.

Here's a new twist that I hadn't considered before. let's explore.

Quote:

---

But all that aside, in their efforts to stop Trump, Prosecutor Jack Smith, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and their federal minions have violated federal law, and specifically the Hatch Act. Let's explore that in a bit more detail.

Specifically, 5 U.S. Code 7323 -provides:

(a)Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not --

(1)use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

---

Quote:

---

This provision of the United States Code prohibits a United States government agent or employee -- a category applying to Jack Smith and his ostensible supervisor Garland -- from using their "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."

---

Quote:

---

Even if the underlying charges against Trump were legitimate, which they are not, the Hatch Act makes no exception for legitimate charges and still prohibits federal employees from using their offices to influence, interfere with, or affect the results of an election. In other words, electoral integrity trumps the whims of a prosecutor, even if the prosecutor had a legitimate case.

---

Hmm. Not sure I agree with that, though. Need to give that more thought and research.

Quote:

---

Smith and Garland are federal employees, and their prosecution, dropped like a dirty bomb in the middle of election season, not only after Trump declared for re-election, but after Biden, Haley, DeSantis, Hutchinson, Scott, Ramaswamy, Christie, Pence, Burgum, and Bobby Kennedy all declared their candidacies, is designed to disrupt and affect the 2024 presidential race, in a way to injure President Trump.

A day after the indictment, 81% of Republicans in a Reuters poll believed that Smith's charges are politically motivated and an ABC poll showed that 47% of all Americans believe the charges are politically motivated, outnumbering by 10% those who do not believe the charges to be politically motivated, at 37%.

Those numbers are significant. When 81% of Republicans and nearly half of all Americans believe charges are political, and even when Democrats and independents are factored in, more Americans believe these charges are political than not. The nation has a serious crisis-of-confidence problem in our criminal justice system, and Smith's indictment has thrown gasoline on a fire of public distrust of the system.

---

Smith was not facing a statute of limitations problem. He could have just waited until after the election or primaries if Trump was not the nominee. That is true. So does his bringing it now satisfy the Hatch Act for "interference'?

Quote:

---

The Hatch Act doesn't have enough teeth to punish offenders like Smith, in that penalties for violating it could mean a five-year suspension or debarment from the federal government and a $1000 fine, but no prison. But still, the law is the law, and Smith and Garland have violated the law with this prosecution.

---

LINK

FTR: Some other things in the aboce article I do not agree with and think the author is confused on where this indictment originated but the Hatch Act angle intrigued me since I had not considered that before.

More on Jack Smith.

Quote:

---

Two Republican legal experts, Jeff Clark and Mike Davis, reacted to bombshell allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against Donald Trump's prosecutors from their former target, Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.). Renzi's comments, published exclusively on PJ Media, expose the politically biased tactics of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

---

Quote:

---

"There may be a long pattern of brickbat tactics here," Clark said, and Davis called out Smith's "very weak legal theory."

Based on a 2019 complaint and request for investigation filed on Renzi's behalf by respected legal firm Mayer Brown, evidence was found of prosecutorial misconduct including improper media leaks, illegal wiretaps, concealment of exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence, destruction of evidence, and introduction of false testimony before and during Renzi's trial.

But while the former allegations were mainly directed at prosecutors working under the supervision of now-Trump Special Counsel Jack Smith, Smith's involvement was apparently more direct. Renzi presented evidence tying Jack Smith and David Harbach, both now prosecuting Trump, to "prosecutorial misconduct" and shady behavior involving jury influencing, illegal wiretaps, and more.

"The prosecutorial misconduct of Jack Smith and his lead prosecutor in my case, David Harbach, is what led to the presidential pardon" that Trump gave him, the former congressman told me. And two Republican legal experts reacted by slamming Smith and his prosecutorial team in exclusive comments to PJ Media.

---

LINK

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Even if the underlying charges against Trump were legitimate, which they are not, the Hatch Act makes no exception for legitimate charges and still prohibits federal employees from using their offices to influence, interfere with, or affect the results of an election. In other words, electoral integrity trumps the whims of a prosecutor, even if the prosecutor had a legitimate case.

---

Hmm. Not sure I agree with that, though. Need to give that more thought and research.

---

1) The Hatch Act prohibits doing something with the "purpose" of influencing/interfering with the election. It doesn't prohibit taking an action with the affect of influencing/interfering with an election. That would be an untenable law for a great many federal employees.

2) It would require some suspension of disbelief that Congress intended the Hatch Act to allow anyone facing federal criminal (or civil) charges to avoid that action, potentially in perpetuity, by filing to be a candidate for public office merely because the prosecution would "affect" the election.

3) The Hatch Act is not itself a legal defense to criminal prosecution.


p.s. Not charging Trump would also influence the Presidential election.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

p.s. Not charging Trump would also influence the Presidential election.

---

Kinda like not charging Hillary. Or burying the case against the dirty Bidens and the laptop from hell.

The FBI and DOJ are corrupt.

It would also require some suspension of disbelief that Congress intended the Espionage Act to allow the DOJ to criminally charge a former president and current presidential candidate on the basis of a dispute surrounding the handling and disposition of presidential records.

Quote:

---

The Justice Department on Friday filed a motion seeking to block former President Trump from releasing any classified materials that will be shared with his legal team during his prosecution for the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago, noting that some are still being used in the course of their investigation.

The documents "include information pertaining to ongoing investigations" which could be used to further cases against uncharged individuals, the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote.

---

Quote:

---

The suggested protective order, which will be reviewed by Judge Bruce Reinhart, would allow Trump to review the 31 documents the DOJ is using in the case only while in the presence of his attorneys.

"Defendants shall only have access to Discovery Materials under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel's staff. Defendants shall not retain copies of Discovery Material. Defendants may take notes regarding Discovery Materials, but such notes shall be stored securely by Defense Counsel," the DOJ wrote.

---

Quote:

---

It also includes similar language to a protective order agreed to in another Trump case that bars the former president from disclosing evidence in the case. New York state prosecutors made that request as they pursue a 34-count indictment of Trump relating to a hush money scandal.

"The Discovery Materials, along with any information derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed to the public or the news media, or disseminated on any news or social media platform, without prior notice to and consent of the United States or approval of the Court," the department wrote.

Judge Aileen Cannon, who oversaw Trump's previous challenge to the investigation, referred the motion to Reinhart, who approved the initial search of Mar-a-Lago.

---

LINK

Damn, Smith sure knows about the timing of which Magistrate will be assigned when, don't they? File this on Monday and it would be another Magistrate on call.

Starting to think that poster, by basis of their profile information, is assigned here for the explicit purpose of disseminating false, rumor and unconfirmed misinformation and disinformation.

Just saying the Hatch Act is not a legal defense is misleading. If the prosecutor filing the charges is breaking the law in filing the charges, I think that may just get the case thrown out, which would seem to be a very effective… defense.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

It would also require some suspension of disbelief that Congress intended the Espionage Act to allow the DOJ to criminally charge a former president and current presidential candidate on the basis of a dispute surrounding the handling and disposition of presidential records.

---

Actually, if you know the history of the Espionage Act, you might reach the opposite conclusion.

Woodrow Wilson used it precisely to imprison his political enemies, such as Eugene V. Debs. (ETA: Who had ran and was running for President. The last time he ran from his jail cell and still got a million votes.)

And for many reasons it has always been those further on the left that have hated the Espionage Act for the last hundred years, until now that is.

Pointing out that arguing congressional intent here may be the weakest of all arguments and cuts both ways. A lot of meat on the bone with these other constitutional based arguments.

But thats wild though. I'm sure the idea didn't come from nowhere. This is the wildest we've ever seen and it's a good point that historically the process itself has been weaponized going back to Marbury.

Some have come to the realization over the years that the republicans trying to **** Bill Clinton over his side piece was a grievous error and might have bought us a few more years until the all out meltdown we've seen since 2015.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Pointing out that arguing congressional intent here may be the weakest of all arguments and cuts both ways. A lot of meat on the bone with these other constitutional based arguments.

But thats wild though. I'm sure the idea didn't come from nowhere. This is the wildest we've ever seen and it's a good point that historically the process itself has been weaponized going back to Marbury.

Some have come to the realization over the years that the republicans trying to **** Bill Clinton over his side piece was a grievous error and might have bought us a few more years until the all out meltdown we've seen since 2015.

---

In hindsight, since Bill only had two years left in his second term, maybe it was not the right call. But Clinton fatigue had set in. Gingrich was out as Speaker and of the "calmer heads" in the House was up and comer Lindsay Graham. Yeah, in hindsight, giving Graham a bully pulpit was not such a great idea..

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

One thing is for sure though.

This case and the set of facts leading up to this case is the biggest piece of **** I've ever laid eyes on.

I'm praying for another Chinese spy balloon, an alien invasion, trans-tifa riots, some country declaring quantum supremacy, an all out global currency collapse, solar flare EMP or an all out polar shift.

Something to distract us from the absolute dog pile that is this case. People got absolutely worn down by 6-years of Trump and we got another 3-4 years more ahead.

This case with Trump is like falling dead asleep on a long haul flight, and waking up only to discover you still got 11-hours left.

It was brought up and the thought would be it have to be under the "public minister" part.

Ultimately it may come down to Congress under a true separation of powers draw. I could see SCOTUS, particularly this one, turning to Congress and telling them to figure it out.

So essentially SC exercises original jurisdiction and it's up to congress to pass a law that would somehow prevent them from hearing the case.

Then SC would have to rule on the constitutionality of a law that prevents itself from hearing a specific case.

Then while all this was going on, Biden signs an executive order cutting off electrical power to the Supreme Court building so they cant hear either case.

Then congress has to pass a special appropriation to fund the restoration of electrical power at the supreme court building case so the case may be heard.

Then when both cases are finally heard a law clerk leaks both draft opinions and riots ensue furthering our decent into cahos and accelerating our trajectory of become a proxy state of China and the new world order.

So our future as a nation is looking bright and we've got the best and most trustworthy people on the job of sorting all this out.

So we got that going for us, which is nice.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

There's probably a couple hundred people in the US with the requisite knowledge, training and experience to competently manage the defense of Trump in this case.

Half of those people won't touch the case for political reasons.

The other half wont get involved because the case it too radioactive. Maybe they've already worked with Trump before, maybe they are conflicted out, maybe they don't want the heat associated with going up against the DOJ or maybe they are caught up in the intimidation tactics outlined in hawg's thread above.

All this amounts to a 6th amendment issue. The pool of competent counsel has been tainted, and there is no way that if this case goes to trial that Trump gets an impartial jury. Where they gonna find people with no opinion on Trump and can agree to be impartial? That in and of itself is reason to ***can this case on constitutional grounds and grant Trump the extraordinary remedy of qualified immunity for anything related to his service as president.

So if you Trump right now you got to find the best experts you can. Sort out this co-conspirator counsel issue, get something on file on 6th amendment constitutional grounds, attack the indictment on constitutional grounds, attack the warrant, and figure out some way to get this case out of district court and in front of the 11th circuit any way you can.

---

As for being unable to choose an impartial jury, I thought that it was okay to have an opinion about someone as long as you can remain impartial.

It makes no sense at all that someone is above the law because they are too well known.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

LOL. SCOTUS refused to hear any election case regarding Trump, with strict time constraints.

You think they would jump into this administrative legal equivalent of a stickey wicket before it is a ripe controversy and with time constraints when they can just punt?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

Original jurisdiction?

Is Trump a state? Is he currently a public official? Is he being prosecuted by another state?

I don't see how the Supreme Court could exercise original jurisdiction in this case.

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

LOL. SCOTUS refused to hear any election case regarding Trump, with strict time constraints.

You think they would jump into this administrative legal equivalent of a stickey wicket before it is a ripe controversy and with time constraints when they can just punt?

---

You right. The court's showed their true colors when they refused to hear not only the election claims, but also a situation where the government mandated voluntary forced medical experimentation on human subjects without informed consent.

When the dust settles, it may be the case that we come to the realization that two branches of the government failed to uphold their duties and responsibilities under the constitution. Two branches of government decide to punt on third down.

If two of three have failed, then where does that leave us?

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

Original jurisdiction?

Is Trump a state? Is he currently a public official? Is he being prosecuted by another state?

I don't see how the Supreme Court could exercise original jurisdiction in this case.

---

Judiciary Act of 1789

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

LOL. SCOTUS refused to hear any election case regarding Trump, with strict time constraints.

You think they would jump into this administrative legal equivalent of a stickey wicket before it is a ripe controversy and with time constraints when they can just punt?

---

The Supreme Court failing to hear this case and do its constitutional duty is further infringement on the process of free and fair elections in this country.

At a minimum the Supreme Court should try and stroke us off a little by maintaining a bare minimum level of order in the electoral process.

Regardless of anyones feelings about Trump, or personal opinion about Trump, the federal indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate during the campaign over some cardboard boxes full of crap is potentially the stupidest thing imaginable.

The only thing stupider that I can think of is electing someone as president with full blown dementia ... and we've already blown right through that.

So that's a long way of saying that the future is grim, and we deserve every bit of it.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

So essentially SC exercises original jurisdiction and it's up to congress to pass a law that would somehow prevent them from hearing the case.

Then SC would have to rule on the constitutionality of a law that prevents itself from hearing a specific case.

Then while all this was going on, Biden signs an executive order cutting off electrical power to the Supreme Court building so they cant hear either case.

Then congress has to pass a special appropriation to fund the restoration of electrical power at the supreme court building case so the case may be heard.

Then when both cases are finally heard a law clerk leaks both draft opinions and riots ensue furthering our decent into cahos and accelerating our trajectory of become a proxy state of China and the new world order.

So our future as a nation is looking bright and we've got the best and most trustworthy people on the job of sorting all this out.

So we got that going for us, which is nice.

---

I was getting more at SCOTUS punting by saying this is a fight amongst the executive over conflicting actsd / laws passed by Congress, and rather than address the original intents of each act, Congress should sort its mess on this.

Its sort of just a random thought for how SCOTUS deflects any responsibility. As noted by you and Hawg in the subsequent posts, they are going to punt on 1st down every time they can, won't even mess with 3 smoke draws.

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

There's probably a couple hundred people in the US with the requisite knowledge, training and experience to competently manage the defense of Trump in this case.

Half of those people won't touch the case for political reasons.

The other half wont get involved because the case it too radioactive. Maybe they've already worked with Trump before, maybe they are conflicted out, maybe they don't want the heat associated with going up against the DOJ or maybe they are caught up in the intimidation tactics outlined in hawg's thread above.

All this amounts to a 6th amendment issue. The pool of competent counsel has been tainted, and there is no way that if this case goes to trial that Trump gets an impartial jury. Where they gonna find people with no opinion on Trump and can agree to be impartial? That in and of itself is reason to ***can this case on constitutional grounds and grant Trump the extraordinary remedy of qualified immunity for anything related to his service as president.

So if you Trump right now you got to find the best experts you can. Sort out this co-conspirator counsel issue, get something on file on 6th amendment constitutional grounds, attack the indictment on constitutional grounds, attack the warrant, and figure out some way to get this case out of district court and in front of the 11th circuit any way you can.

---

As for being unable to choose an impartial jury, I thought that it was okay to have an opinion about someone as long as you can remain impartial.

It makes no sense at all that someone is above the law because they are too well known.

---

There's no way that Trump gets a fair trial in this case under the 6th amendment for the reasons stated above and earlier in this thread. By me.

No-one is above the law because they are too well known, but Trump is an extraordinary case.

Anything to do with Trump is so politically charged, toxified, tainted and otherwise suspect due to the course of events over the past 7-years that the court exercising original jurisdiction is appropriate in this extraordinary circumstance involving a former president and an current presidential candidate. They case has no place in the district courts, and I think the people that drafted the constitution and the judicial act of 1789 would agree with this notion.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

Original jurisdiction?

Is Trump a state? Is he currently a public official? Is he being prosecuted by another state?

I don't see how the Supreme Court could exercise original jurisdiction in this case.

---

Judiciary Act of 1789

---

Nope. Try again.

Quote:

---

And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party.

---

Just how do you spin that in this case?

Sure, if it was the State of Illinois vs Trump, then it would be a state going after a citizen of another state. If Trump were still President, then he would be a public official.

It is not a state prosecuting Trump and Trump is not a public official of any kind.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

There's probably a couple hundred people in the US with the requisite knowledge, training and experience to competently manage the defense of Trump in this case.

Half of those people won't touch the case for political reasons.

The other half wont get involved because the case it too radioactive. Maybe they've already worked with Trump before, maybe they are conflicted out, maybe they don't want the heat associated with going up against the DOJ or maybe they are caught up in the intimidation tactics outlined in hawg's thread above.

All this amounts to a 6th amendment issue. The pool of competent counsel has been tainted, and there is no way that if this case goes to trial that Trump gets an impartial jury. Where they gonna find people with no opinion on Trump and can agree to be impartial? That in and of itself is reason to ***can this case on constitutional grounds and grant Trump the extraordinary remedy of qualified immunity for anything related to his service as president.

So if you Trump right now you got to find the best experts you can. Sort out this co-conspirator counsel issue, get something on file on 6th amendment constitutional grounds, attack the indictment on constitutional grounds, attack the warrant, and figure out some way to get this case out of district court and in front of the 11th circuit any way you can.

---

As for being unable to choose an impartial jury, I thought that it was okay to have an opinion about someone as long as you can remain impartial.

It makes no sense at all that someone is above the law because they are too well known.

---

There's no way that Trump gets a fair trial in this case under the 6th amendment for the reasons stated above and earlier in this thread. By me.

No-one is above the law because they are too well known, but Trump is an extraordinary case.

Anything to do with Trump is so politically charged, toxified, tainted and otherwise suspect due to the course of events over the past 7-years that the court exercising original jurisdiction is appropriate in this extraordinary circumstance involving a former president and an current presidential candidate. They case has no place in the district courts, and I think the people that drafted the constitution and the judicial act of 1789 would agree with this notion.

---

Nope. There is no "extraordinary person clause" in the Constitution that I remember.

For what it's worth, it seems to me that a jury trial would likely have both Republicans and Democrats. If they decide according to their politics, then a hung jury would be likely.

In any case, Trump may be polarizing, but there are plenty of people who don't really care either way. If they had to find people who are neither pro-Trump nor anti-Trump, there will still be plenty of people.

Let me help you with this overall thing.

A trial by jury for DJT on these charges is not justice at all, no matter how you spin it or how big your blinders are.

The search warrant, raid, investigation and indictment are already huge miscarriages of justice. Other than a dropping of all investigations, a complete leveling of the DOJ/FBI and the resignation of any individual part of this including Biden, Garland, the NARA dude, members of the 11th Court of Appeals, and so on... anything short of those things is not justice at all.

One cannot simply pretend if justice to bring this on Trump. Its pure political (and illegal) election interference and people should swing from the gallows.

Many people have gone to prison for less.

If you take classified documents home with you and they likely won't even give you the opportunity of getting off scot-free if you return them.

Trump already had the deal of a life-time but he was too stupid to take advantage of it. If he had returned them when asked, none of this would be happening.