Pending indictment against Trump in Georgia

210,824 Views | 2423 Replies | Last: 14 days ago by aggiehawg
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Kraken lady & Cheese-bro up next month.

Get your popcorn ready.

I'm Gipper
GeorgiAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The way I see this, it goes one of two way.

They get convicted and sentenced. The other defendants have a come-to-Jesus moment and turn on Trump

or

The get off or get slaps on the wrist and the other defendants rally around Trump. Very interesting indeed.

BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chesebro will fight being tried with powell.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GeorgiAg said:

The way I see this, it goes one of two way.

They get convicted and sentenced. The other defendants have a come-to-Jesus moment and turn on Trump

or

The get off or get slaps on the wrist and the other defendants rally around Trump. Very interesting indeed.


Just what exactly are they going to "turn on Trump" about?

And why would anyone need to get the popcorn ready?

Is someone expecting something to be presented other than what is in the indictment? Cause if they had it, we would already know about it.

I'd put money on the cases being dismissed.
GeorgiAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dismissed? Nah, there will be a trial.

"Turning on Trump" would be admitting he:

  • knew he lost the election
  • asked for ways to subvert it in Georgia
  • formed a plan for doing so by impaneling fake electors, getting GOP gov and/or SOS to throw the election to the GOP controlled legislature without solid legal or factual basis.
  • having fake electors vote for Trump in Electoral College
TheAngelFlight
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:



Kraken lady & Cheese-bro up next month.

Get your popcorn ready.



That's not the result anyone "wanted."
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

And why would anyone need to get the popcorn ready?

Is someone expecting something to be presented other than what is in the indictment? Cause if they had it, we would already know about it.

I'd put money on the cases being dismissed.
A fool and his money are soon parted.

There is no chance the Cheesebro/Powell case gets dismissed. Whether it should or not is a different question.

I'm Gipper
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Knew he lost the election???
GeorgiAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jt2hunt said:

Knew he lost the election???
Quote:

Former President Trump told his then-chief of staff "this is embarrassing," and "I don't want people to know that we lost," after the Supreme Court ruled against him on a key case about the 2020 election, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson told the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3686868-cassidy-hutchinson-trump-told-meadows-this-is-embarrassing-i-dont-want-people-to-know-that-we-lost/



Trump denying election losses is what he does. He said the same thing about Cruz.
Quote:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday accused rival Ted Cruz of stealing a victory in the Iowa caucuses and called for another vote or nullification of Cruz's win.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-cruz/trump-accuses-cruz-of-stealing-iowa-caucuses-through-fraud-idUSKCN0VC1Z6



He also did the same BEFORE the election with Hillary
Quote:

Donald Trump has stepped up his argument that the presidential election will be rigged in favour of Hillary Clinton, claiming that the only way he can lose Pennsylvania is "if cheating goes on".

Whereas Trump regularly cited opinion polls when he was winning the Republican primaries, his poor showing in recent national surveys has left him sowing doubt about the integrity of the process, even before a vote is cast.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/13/donald-trump-claims-cheating-is-only-way-he-can-lose-pennsylvania
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Didn't want people to know he lost the court case.
Big nothing
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cruz and Iowa is a campaign tactic. Wow you really got him on that one TDS.
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He was right about Hillary.
Exactly why cheating was done on a grander scale with Biden(your senile hero)
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GeorgiAg said:

Dismissed? Nah, there will be a trial.

"Turning on Trump" would be admitting he:

  • knew he lost the election
  • asked for ways to subvert it in Georgia
  • formed a plan for doing so by impaneling fake electors, getting GOP gov and/or SOS to throw the election to the GOP controlled legislature without solid legal or factual basis.
  • having fake electors vote for Trump in Electoral College



Ok, so nothing then since he literally did none of those things.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:

Quote:

And why would anyone need to get the popcorn ready?

Is someone expecting something to be presented other than what is in the indictment? Cause if they had it, we would already know about it.

I'd put money on the cases being dismissed.
A fool and his money are soon parted.

There is no chance the Cheesebro/Powell case gets dismissed. Whether it should or not is a different question.


Probably why you are still working and I am mostly retired.
aggiejayrod
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cassidy is not only double hearsay, she is the same one who said she heard from someone else that Trump tried to wrestle the wheel away from the limo driver. Her credibility is not exactly what you'd call solid
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How is it "double hearsay"? Didn't she testify she heard Trump say that to Meadows?

I'm Gipper
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im Gipper said:

How is it "double hearsay"? Didn't she testify she heard Trump say that to Meadows?
No.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This story suggest she did, but journalists are notorious for "misreporting" on legal matters! Lol.

Transcript might shows Meadows told her that?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3686868-cassidy-hutchinson-trump-told-meadows-this-is-embarrassing-i-dont-want-people-to-know-that-we-lost/

I'm Gipper
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Apologies. Misread that to suggest Cassidy was talking about Trump grabbing the steering wheel of The Beast on Jan 6th.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a smackdown to Fani by the judge.

Quote:

Fulton County DA Fani Willis wanted to try all 19 defendants at the same time in October.
McAfee said no:
Quote:

Beginning with the logistical concerns, the Fulton County Courthouse simply contains no courtroom adequately large enough to hold all 19 defendants, their multiple attorneys and support staff, the sheriff's deputies, court personnel, and the State's prosecutorial team. Relocating to another larger venue raises security concerns that cannot be rapidly addressed. As for the length of the trial, the State argues it plans to call the same number of witnesses in its case in chief no matter how many defendants are tried together. Maybe so. But this is only one of many factors that drive the length of trial. Each additional defendant increases the length of opening and closing arguments, crossexamination, and the number of evidentiary objections. Each additional defendant increases the risk that the trial must be paused due to the unexpected absence of a party or attorney.

Quote:

McAfee decided against severance:
Quote:

Left with only arguments regarding judicial economy, and the perceived unfairness of being forced to sit through a presentation of evidence that the Defendants contend only tangentially relates to them, the Court finds that these ancillary interests are outweighed by efficiency concerns of its own. Specifically, due to the projected length of this trial, severing the case would require the enlistment of another member of the bench to comply with the statutory speedy trial deadline. The Defendants' judicial economy concerns simply do not outweigh the resources expended through an additional trial, the shuttering of a second judge's docket, and the resultant delay to a multitude of other criminal and civil cases, many of which involve inmates in lengthy pretrial confinement.

LINK
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As I said earlier, in-line how this judge handles his courtroom. In addition to knocking down Willis, here's his polite way of saying "stop filing dung motions" to some of the defendants:

TheAngelFlight
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The judge has been really annoyed with some of the defendants.

And you never want to start hearing the judge call your filings "facially without merit."
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That is actually a win for Powell and Chesebro, more for Powell I think.
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What is voluntary? The defense asks a juror to come in for an interview and they can do it or decline?
TexasAggie_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
oh no said:


aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jt2hunt said:

What is voluntary? The defense asks a juror to come in for an interview and they can do it or decline?
All Powell needs is one.

A few balls up in the air here. Powell's team is going after Willis for massive Brady violations. She wasn't on the agreements between the Coffee County Election Supervisor and Strickland, et. al. doing the forensic copy of the hard drive. And the Election Supervisor asked them to be there, not including Powell, who wasn't.

Fani did not present that evidence to the grand jury, which FTR she didn't have to do. But that juror from the grand jury is asked about if they had seen that would they return an indictment? And the standard for a grand jury is merely probable cause not a trial jury's beyond a reasonable doubt standard. That can be argued by defense counsel all day and twice on Sunday.

Didn't want to get too far into the weeds but does that help?
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Nah. That's not the issue they're seeking to talk to jurors about. The interviews aren't about any alleged Brady violation. And the judge made clear he doesn't see any Brady violations.

The interviews have to do with whether the grand jury read the full indictment or it was summarized to them. Cheseboro's lawyers contend they have reason to believe it was only summarized and further contend that would be a violation of Georgia law. Powell has tagged along.

The judge in his order effectively is saying "I don't have the authority to prevent any interviews but I can set a lot of conditions."

This is a fishing expedition by Cheseboro but by all means if it turns something up, then good on them for doing it
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cheseboro's motion laying out the issue is here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23934263/23sc188947-motion-8-chesebro-speak-with-grand-jury.pdf

Powell's lawyers adopted the motion orally.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Read that Jeffrey Clark didn't even show up at his hearing trying to remove his case to federal court.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:

Read that Jeffrey Clark didn't even show up at his hearing trying to remove his case to federal court.


I believe his attorneys tried to introduce a written statement by him into evidence, which was denied by the judge
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

A legal expert is warning that Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis could be walking into a "trap" regarding an appeal to have a case moved out of her jurisdiction and into a federal court.

The warning comes after former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' first attempt to get his charges by Willis removed to federal court failed, leading him to file an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court, which is now asking for a brief from Willis regarding her opinion on whether federal officials, generally speaking, are eligible for such immunity of the kind being sought by Meadows, a former GOP congressman from North Carolina.
Quote:

Georgia State Law professor Anthony Michael Kreis says that even if Willis wins the review, it will be shortlived and meaningless.

"I think this is a trap that Fani Willis should not walk into," Kreis wrote on the X platform. "The consensus has generally been (and I think correct) that the current status of the defendant does not matter but what does matter is whether the acts that undergird the legal action are related to official duties."


LINK

The sheer number of real legal jurisdiction and immunity questions present in even deciding to bring such an indictment indicates she did not think any of it through. It was cobbled together hastily and there is no way she is ready to take this case to trial, not against all of the defendants the way she has said she wants.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What is the benefit to prosecutors of trying everyone together? Not necessarily specific to this case, but in general?

And why is she hell bent on keeping all of them together?
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u said:

What is the benefit to prosecutors of trying everyone together? Not necessarily specific to this case, but in general?

And why is she hell bent on keeping all of them together?
In a case like this with a lot of defendants who may not be well-liked, their bad acts can rub off on others whose actions may not be that bad at all. It's so you can end up with a "guilt by association."
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:

What is the benefit to prosecutors of trying everyone together? Not necessarily specific to this case, but in general?

And why is she hell bent on keeping all of them together?
Witnesses over time tend to misremember and testify differently, leading to impeachment and credibility issues in later trials, is the most usual concern.

Here you have 19 defendants, with many of them being accused of crimes specific only to them and not the remaining defendants. You risk jury confusion as to which evidence applies to which defendant which of course is by design by Willis.

Originally, I think she was hoping that casting such a wide net would get lesser defendants to flip and testify against Trump. The old childhood argument, "He made me do it!"
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.