Meanwhile, Barr was on Cavuto as they fellated each other over Trump's pending demise.

Barr used the leftist talking point that if you have a dispute with a bank regarding your money, you cannot rob the bank to get it back. That seems to make sense to mental midgets so they seem to go with that.

The problem is that is not what Trump and his friends did. They had discussions with themselves and others about all the potential LEGAL means to get their money from the bank. Some of those ideas were better than others, and some of the ideas were outright questionable (like alternate electors).

But Trump never asked people to break any laws nor broke any laws. To McCarthy's point, Willis claims the crime was the conspiracy but never pointing to the actual crime.

This is the same issue with Bragg in NY. There is no underlying crime but a claim that there was some coordinated effort to do something they did not agree with, and that coordinated effort is a crime even though there is no underlying crime.

Same bullshat at obstruction of justice claim when there again is no underlying crime.

Clown world, banana republic, **** show at the **** factory.

Turned it over to Kudlow who is having a nice sit down with Trump.

On this Colton Moore letter calling for a special session, did anyone else even sign it? Thinking this is just a draft and not actually sent to Governor.

As a Georgia State Senator, I am officially calling for an emergency session to review the actions of Fani Willis. 

America is under attack. I’m not going to sit back and watch as radical left prosecutors politically TARGET political opponents. pic.twitter.com/gpzg2l5uIU

— Sen. Colton Moore (@realColtonMoore) August 17, 2023

A Republican take an action love to see it!

fka ftc said:

---

Meanwhile, Barr was on Cavuto as they fellated each other over Trump's pending demise.

Barr used the leftist talking point that if you have a dispute with a bank regarding your money, you cannot rob the bank to get it back. That seems to make sense to mental midgets so they seem to go with that.

The problem is that is not what Trump and his friends did. They had discussions with themselves and others about all the potential LEGAL means to get their money from the bank. Some of those ideas were better than others, and some of the ideas were outright questionable (like alternate electors).

But Trump never asked people to break any laws nor broke any laws. To McCarthy's point, Willis claims the crime was the conspiracy but never pointing to the actual crime.

This is the same issue with Bragg in NY. There is no underlying crime but a claim that there was some coordinated effort to do something they did not agree with, and that coordinated effort is a crime even though there is no underlying crime.

Same bullshat at obstruction of justice claim when there again is no underlying crime.

Clown world, banana republic, **** show at the **** factory.

Turned it over to Kudlow who is having a nice sit down with Trump.

---

My impression has always been that the alternate electors was just a "just in case" move to be ready if either a recount or one of the court cases was successful in changing the outcomes. Was there actually some evidence that they planned to "sneak" the "fake electors" in, in place of the actual electors? Or were they just assembling people they could trust to vote for Trump to be ready at a moment's notice in case the election outcome was changed as a result of one of the challenges? One would be a potentially criminal act. The other is just a smart move to keep from having to flail around at the last minute and possible getting people who might switch votes on you up there.

They told these people that they will only be used as electors if Trump was successful in his legal challenges. That probably was the plan in the beginning.

However, based on the Cheeseboro-Eastman, memo when January arrived, and all the court challenges were lost, they wanted Pence to look at these fake electors and say " because I have two sets of electors, I must throw out the votes from the states."

So by January 6, it was not a substitution that was wanted, but just to use those fake electors to throw out that state's vote.

Also, they did not need them to "be ready at a moments notice". They had already signed the certifications back in December.

oh no said:

---

LMCane said:

---

What do the Trump supporters do after Trump is found guilty of multiple felonies?

---

i don't know but the TDS-infected programmed masses will probably need a cigarette and a towel to clean themselves up

---

They're already going through cigarettes and towels like a fat kid goes through chocolate, and that's just with the indictments.

Hopefully they stock up during the after Christmas sales so they're ready for the hearings. The televised one is going to get Trump his biggest ratings ever.

https://x.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1692212290890739928?s=46&t=d7IBskBQGuJBCHbjK9TA7A

jt2hunt said:

---

Stay tuned for @OKeefeMedia to produce more news in Fulton County…
If you have evidence of voter registration on fraud slide into our DMs. https://t.co/A08AlWXDKI

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) August 17, 2023

---

most secure election ever of course

Quote:

---

My impression has always been that the alternate electors was just a "just in case" move to be ready if either a recount or one of the court cases was successful in changing the outcomes. Was there actually some evidence that they planned to "sneak" the "fake electors" in, in place of the actual electors? Or were they just assembling people they could trust to vote for Trump to be ready at a moment's notice in case the election outcome was changed as a result of one of the challenges? One would be a potentially criminal act. The other is just a smart move to keep from having to flail around at the last minute and possible getting people who might switch votes on you up there.

---

According to the indictment, the "alternative electors" actually gathered, voted, and mailed their ballots to the U.S. Senate in 7 different states. They then asked the Vice President to reject all of the electoral votes from the 7 states on the grounds that he had received 2 slates of electors.

Welcome to the double stand of the US Justice System that has become weaponized against Donald Trump, his associates, and many Republicans.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Let's put RICO to the side for a moment and focus on conspiracy. Very simply, a conspiracy is an agreement to violate a criminal statute. It takes two to tango, so a conspiracy must minimally involve a pair of people. Beyond that, though, it can involve three people, 19 people, 100 people any number. Regardless of how many people are said to be implicated, however, there is always one requirement: There must be a meeting of the minds about the crime that is the objective of the conspiracy.

---

Let's repeat that.

Regardless of how many people are said to be implicated, however, there is always one requirement: There must be a meeting of the minds about the crime that is the objective of the conspiracy.

---

I can't speak to all 50 states, but this isn't really the law in Georgia. They only need to show a tacit understanding they were pursuing the same objective.

"An agreement to join a conspiracy "need not be express, nor does it require a 'meeting of the minds' to the same degree necessary to form a contract," but there must at least be "a tacit mutual understanding between persons to pursue a common criminal objective." J.C. v. I Shri Khodiyar, LLC, 624 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (N.D. Ga. 2022), interpreting Georgia's RICO statute.

Quote:

---

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.

---

This also isn't the law in Georgia. Their RICO law only requires at two different acts that are sufficiently separate acts but sufficiently linked in purpose. There is no requirement about longevity or a "continuing threat."

"Our legislature intended to and did, by virtue of OCGA 16-14-4(a) and 16-14-3(2), subject to the coverage of our RICO statute two crimes, included in the statute as designated predicate acts, which are part of the same scheme, without the added burden of showing that defendant would continue the conduct or had been guilty of like conduct before the incidents charged as a RICO violation. Dover v State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989.


And by the way, at the federal level, the Supreme Court in 2009 said an enterprise only need exist long enough for its associates to pursue its purpose (United States vs Boyle). There is absolutely no requirement for the enterprise to exist in perpetuity, attempt to exist in perpetuity, or otherwise "be a continuing threat" or "labor to preserve its existence."

"From the terms of RICO, it is apparent that an association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose. As we succinctly put it in Turkette, an association-in-fact enterprise is "a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct." 556 U.S. 938, at 946.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Let's put RICO to the side for a moment and focus on conspiracy. Very simply, a conspiracy is an agreement to violate a criminal statute. It takes two to tango, so a conspiracy must minimally involve a pair of people. Beyond that, though, it can involve three people, 19 people, 100 people any number. Regardless of how many people are said to be implicated, however, there is always one requirement: There must be a meeting of the minds about the crime that is the objective of the conspiracy.

---

Let's repeat that.

Regardless of how many people are said to be implicated, however, there is always one requirement: There must be a meeting of the minds about the crime that is the objective of the conspiracy.

---

I can't speak to all 50 states, but this isn't really the law in Georgia. They only need to show a tacit understanding they were pursuing the same objective.

"An agreement to join a conspiracy "need not be express, nor does it require a 'meeting of the minds' to the same degree necessary to form a contract," but there must at least be "a tacit mutual understanding between persons to pursue a common criminal objective." J.C. v. I Shri Khodiyar, LLC, 624 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (N.D. Ga. 2022), interpreting Georgia's RICO statute.

Quote:

---

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.

---

This also isn't the law in Georgia. Their RICO law only requires at two different acts that are sufficiently separate acts but sufficiently linked in purpose. There is no requirement about longevity or a "continuing threat."

"Our legislature intended to and did, by virtue of OCGA 16-14-4(a) and 16-14-3(2), subject to the coverage of our RICO statute two crimes, included in the statute as designated predicate acts, which are part of the same scheme, without the added burden of showing that defendant would continue the conduct or had been guilty of like conduct before the incidents charged as a RICO violation. Dover v State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989.


And by the way, at the federal level, the Supreme Court in 2009 said an enterprise only need exist long enough for its associates to pursue its purpose (United States vs Boyle). There is absolutely no requirement for the enterprise to exist in perpetuity, attempt to exist in perpetuity, or otherwise "be a continuing threat" or "labor to preserve its existence."

"From the terms of RICO, it is apparent that an association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose. As we succinctly put it in Turkette, an association-in-fact enterprise is "a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct." 556 U.S. 938, at 946.

---

I don't think you can show that mutual understanding to pursue a criminal objective. They all had the same objective, but I don't think they all had a mutual understanding that they wanted to do something criminal.

Quote:

---

I don't think you can show that mutual understanding to pursue a criminal objective. They all had the same objective, but I don't think they all had a mutual understanding that they wanted to do something criminal.

---

I don't believe that's meant to say they had to have a mutual understanding that what they were doing was in fact criminal. I think that's meant to be read as "mutual understanding to pursue an objective, which happens to be criminal."

While its a cliche, its also very real: ignorance of the law isn't a defense. The only general exception in American law is when a reasonable person would not believe their actions are regulated (United States v Freed) and there was no likelihood/probability the person could have known of the law (Lambert v California.)

Either way, I think one reason why all these indictments hammer on all the warnings given to Trump and others is to push back on the idea that they couldn't have reasonably known their objectives might be crossing into criminality.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't think you can show that mutual understanding to pursue a criminal objective. They all had the same objective, but I don't think they all had a mutual understanding that they wanted to do something criminal.

---

I don't believe that's meant to say they had to have a mutual understanding that what they were doing was in fact criminal. I think that's meant to be read as "mutual understanding to pursue an objective, which happens to be criminal."

While its a cliche, its also very real: ignorance of the law isn't a defense. The only general exception in American law is when a reasonable person would not believe their actions are regulated (United States v Freed) and there was no likelihood/probability the person could have known of the law (Lambert v California.)

Either way, I think one reason why all these indictments hammer on all the warnings given to Trump and others is to push back on the idea that they couldn't have reasonably known their objectives might be crossing into criminality.

---

IANAL, but what you posted above clearly says "there must at least be 'a tacit mutual understanding between persons to pursue a common criminal objective.'" It doesn't say a common objective that happens to be criminal. It says "to pursue a common criminal objective". To me that means that the objective of the group effort was to commit a crime. I don't think all 19 of those charged set out to commit a crime. I think all of them were trying to legally challenge election results to get Trump re-elected. I think only a few strayed into the territory of possibly committing crimes, but the crime was not the objective, just a means to reach the objective, which isn't what racketeering is about. Racketeering is about forming a group specifically to engage in a crime as the purpose of the group. Ie drug dealing or large scale catalytic converter theft, not trying to legally challenge and election and going over the line somewhere along the way.

The legal argument by TXAggie2011 really falls apart when one considers that none of the actions taken by the conspirators was even remotely criminal in nature / objectivce.

jt2hunt said:

---

A Republican take an action love to see it!

---

it appears the only "action" he took was posting a draft letter on twitter for fundraising. is there any actual legislative action taking place?

update:

he was full of it:

Quote:

---

Moore, in a statement to Fox News Digital, clarified that the statement in the letter alluding to having a majority in both houses was not accurate.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gov-brian-kemp-hasnt-received-evidence-state-sen-moore-majority-necessary-willis-impeachment

The senator says he has 3/5 the each house.
Governor Kemp says he does not have any proof.

We'll see how this plays out and who ends up being right I don't even know the breakdown of the house and senate by party.

Quote:

---

The senator says he has 3/5 the each house

---

he wrote that in a letter, but says that is not accurate when asked about it.

He better find the votes

Quote:

---

We'll see how this plays out and who ends up being right

---

What does this mean? We know who is right. There is no proof of 3/5 of either house having signed this letter. Which the GA rep admits in the linked story.

It does not seem to be a dispute on this. What am I missing?

I'm suggesting will see in the end if he ends up garnering 3/5 of each chamber

Well when that happens, he may want to send the actual names to Kemp! lol

Im Gipper said:

---

Well when that happens, he may want to send the actual names to Kemp! lol

---

Meadows files motion to disnss

https://x.om/kyledcheney/status/1693057487375573450?s=46&t=BsoAex53Fq_A-LsaG_cEnw

Suits under state law are barred against federal officers carrying out executive duties

Im Gipper said:

---

Meadows files motion to disnss

https://x.om/kyledcheney/status/1693057487375573450?s=46&t=BsoAex53Fq_A-LsaG_cEnw

Suits under state law are barred against federal officers carrying out executive duties

---

Like his argument for removal to federal court, the core of his argument here is that he was just a scheduler. No underlying argument made as to any election-specific duty.


"[T]he underlying facts entail duties with the core functions of a Chief of Staff to the President of the United States: arranging and attending Oval Office meetings, contacting state officials on the President's behalf, visiting a state government building, and setting up a phone call for the President with a state official...

If Georgia could prosecute a Chief of State to the President based on a course of conduct that includes, for instance, arranging meetings with legislators from Michigan and Pennsylvania...they could prosecute him too."

Im Gipper said:

---

Meadows files motion to disnss

https://x.om/kyledcheney/status/1693057487375573450?s=46&t=BsoAex53Fq_A-LsaG_cEnw

Suits under state law are barred against federal officers carrying out executive duties

---

Trying to help overthrow a valid election is not within his executive duties. Doubt judge will grant it.

agz win said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Meadows files motion to disnss

https://x.om/kyledcheney/status/1693057487375573450?s=46&t=BsoAex53Fq_A-LsaG_cEnw

Suits under state law are barred against federal officers carrying out executive duties

---

Trying to help overthrow a valid election is not within his executive duties. Doubt judge will grant it.

---

Not sure its going to be up to the judge to determine what is and is not within the executive duties of POTUS's staff.

That's a constitutional issue well above that judge's pay grade. He/She/They may rule, but SCOTUS will be the arbiter of something so serious.

The Distrct Judge (Steve Jones) will be the first to be the judge of that.

Then, a 3 Justice panel of the 11th Circuit will judge that issue. Maybe even an en banc panel will judge that issue.

Then the Supreme Court.

Im Gipper said:

---

The Distrct Judge (Steve Jones) will be the first to be the judge of that.

Then, a 3 Justice panel of the 11th Circuit will judge that issue. Maybe even an en banc panel will judge that issue.

Then the Supreme Court.

---

Point being SCOTUS is the only appropriate venue for such a determination.

Else, it would be like some staffer for AOC saying they are deciding if a Supreme Court decision is valid.

I'm doubtful that issue will be a close enough call to have SCOTUS interested in it

From a case meadows cites

Quote:

---

It is clear that a federal official does not enjoy absolute state immunity simply because of his office and his purpose. McShane, 235 F. Supp. at 273. That a deliberate violation of state law may render federal law enforcement more convenient is insufficient to shield the agent from state prosecution. More is required lest the issue, at least initially, be left to state court resolution.

Neagle requires first that the federal officer be in the performance of an act which he is authorized by federal law to do as part of his duty. Martin argues that there is no authority for a federal agent to bribe a state official. In Neagle, it was held that the necessary authority could be derived from the general scope of the officer's duties. The duty of the executive branch to enforce the laws of the United States and to employ agents to assist in that purpose by detecting and prosecuting crimes against the United States, as provided by statute, requires no elaboration. The authority of the agenet, who also had the approval of his superiors and the United States Attorney, was adequate to pursue an investigation of possible federal crimes. Even if the officer makes an error in judgment in what the officer conceives to be his legal duty, that alone will not serve to create criminal responsibility in a federal officer. Clifton, 549 F.2d at 727. There is no suggestion that Baucom acted because of any personal interest, malice, actual criminal intent, or for any other reason than to do his duty as he saw it. His good faith cannot be seriously questioned. McShane, 235 F. Supp. at 274.

The second part of the Neagle test is more difficult to apply, whether what the officer did was "no more than what was necessary and proper for him to do."

---

https://casetext.com/case/baucom-v-martin

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I'm doubtful that issue will be a close enough call to have SCOTUS interested in it

---

Good thing you are not the one deciding things.

A low level judge deciding whether the POTUS chief of staff was acting within his official duties is not just laughable, its utterly dangerous to our Country and the separation of powers and the authorities / responsibilities vested in the Executive.

It's no different than pulling over the presidential motorcade and writing them a bunch of traffic tickets when they visit Podunk, Mississippi.

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump was granted a $200,000 bond on Monday ahead of the Republican's expected surrender at the Fulton County jail.

Under the terms of the consent bond order, Trump can't perform any acts of witness intimidation or communicate directly or indirectly about the facts of the case with any codefendants except through his lawyer.

---

Quote:

---

The document was signed by Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee and Trump's three Atlanta-based attorneys. The latter were spotted walking into the Fulton County courthouse on Monday afternoon.

---

Quote:

---

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who secured a racketeering indictment against Trump and 18 others from a grand jury last week, is giving defendants until Friday at noon to surrender.

A handful of other defendants were also granted bond orders on Monday, including attorneys John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro and Ray Smith. Scott Hall, an Atlanta bail bondsman who was involved in the Coffee County election data breach, also received a bond order.

---

Filings are at LINK