Pending indictment against Trump in Georgia

189,799 Views | 2411 Replies | Last: 6 days ago by aggiejayrod
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:05p, 8/15/23
AG
To quote Comey,"No reasonable prosecutor would bring this case."

Fact: In the long running Curling v. Raffensperger case in federal court before Judge Totenberg, J. Alex Halderman was finally granted access to Dominion machines. He wrote such a scathing report about insecure and poorly designed their sytems were garbage and eminently hackable by people having a modicum of computer knowledge. It was so bad, Judge Totenberg ordered it sealed so foreign actors wouldn't get any bright ideas. The judge did allow a redacted portion of that report to go to CISA, the federal agency for cybersecurity.

Fact: CISA immediately sent out an alert regarding Dominion Voting Systems flaws and suggesting fixes.

Fact: Halderman responded that no security patches or fixes would work for a software that had no security in the first place.

Fact: Raffensperger has said he won't even try to fix anything with Dominion's systems until after the 2024 election. He wants to maintain the status quo, as crappy as it is.
Reply Quote
5
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 5:08p, 8/15/23
From the indictment yesterday, several of the charges relate to Rafflesburger and September 17, 2021. I don't recall anything particular about that date. Am I missing something?
Reply Quote
2
Ags77
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:10p, 8/15/23
AG
I see where Meadows is asking to have his case moved from a state case to a federal case. That's what I initially thought Trump lawyers should do.
Reply Quote
1
GeorgiAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ags77 • 5:11p, 8/15/23
AG
Ags77 said:
I see where Meadows is asking to have his case moved from a state case to a federal case. That's what I initially thought Trump lawyers should do.
Yeah, and I want my house to be moved to Grand Cayman.
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GeorgiAg • 5:41p, 8/15/23
AG
GeorgiAg said:
Ags77 said:
I see where Meadows is asking to have his case moved from a state case to a federal case. That's what I initially thought Trump lawyers should do.
Yeah, and I want my house to be moved to Grand Cayman.
There are grounds for filing for removal to federal courts on this indictment. Willis didn't exactly stay in her lane. She is alleging federal official misconduct while serving and performing duties in that capacity.

Quote:
To try to get the case into federal court, Trump is expected to argue that much of the conduct he's been charged with was undertaken in his capacity as an officer of the federal government, because he was still president during the critical period when he and his allies attempted to subvert the 2020 election results. A federal law, known as a "removal statute," generally allows any "officer of the United States" who is prosecuted or sued in state court to transfer the case to federal court if the case stems from the officer's governmental duties.
Politico

<sigh>
Reply Quote
3
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:44p, 8/15/23
AG
It will be a Hail Mary shot, to say the least, to successfully argue most of this was within his official duties as President
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 5:49p, 8/15/23
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
It will be a Hail Mary shot, to say the least, to successfully argue most (or any) of this was within his official duties as President
Really? How do you figure that a President, as the unitary executive, has no responsibility to ensure free and fair elections? Because every single agency at the federal level that have those responsibilites are within the Executive Branch. Article II.

<sigh>
Reply Quote
11
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:02p, 8/15/23
aggiehawg said:
TXAggie2011 said:
It will be a Hail Mary shot, to say the least, to successfully argue most (or any) of this was within his official duties as President
Really? How do you figure that a President, as the unitary executive, has no responsibility to ensure free and fair elections? Because every single agency at the federal level that have those responsibilites are within the Executive Branch. Article II.

<sigh>
More than the other BS cases, its pretty clear Trump has immunity here and that immunity will extend to all the co-conspirators.

"I was instructing investigations into the election integrity in the United States whilst carrying out my official duties as President of the United States."

Period. End of story. Case dismissed.

Else, we are going straight to a full-fledged constitutional crisis.
Reply Quote
4
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:08p, 8/15/23
AG
aggiehawg said:
TXAggie2011 said:
It will be a Hail Mary shot, to say the least, to successfully argue most (or any) of this was within his official duties as President
Really? How do you figure that a President, as the unitary executive, has no responsibility to ensure free and fair elections? Because every single agency at the federal level that have those responsibilites are within the Executive Branch. Article II.

<sigh>
Okay. Let's discuss this. In Thompson v Trump, a federal court said Trump provided no legal authority and the court could find no legal authority providing a role for the President in a state's electoral college process.

So, starting from that point, what's best possible legal authority providing a role for the President? Let's go from there...
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 6:16p, 8/15/23
AG
This board has been full of a lot of dumb since last night. I'm too old to suffer fools as lightly as I once did.

Today, my eyes rolled so far back up into my head, I'm surprised they didn't stay there, like my Mom always warned when I was a kid.

Not that I don't disagrre with your take at times too. I am an equal opportunity eye roller. Hope that doesn't offend you when I disagree. I'm really not sure about the veracity of your absolute immunity defense, for example. Arguments both ways, IMO.

But until SCOTUS addresss these issues instead of ducking them, we get to wander around in the woods behind small animals with no breadcrumbs showing the way.
Reply Quote
4
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 6:23p, 8/15/23
AG
Quote:
Okay. Let's discuss this. In Thompson v Trump, a federal court said Trump provided no legal authority and the court could find no legal authority providing a role for the President in a state's electoral college process.

So, starting from that point, what's best possible legal authority providing a role for the President? Let's go from there...
Good Lord! So the Voting Rights Act can no longer be enforced by DOJ? An Executive Branch function? The FEC has zero authority? EAC? Gone. CISA? Gone. HAVA? Gone. Homeland Security? Gone.

That is your position? That the APA removed those from being in the Executive Branch?

So where are they?

FTR: I would have zero problem with Department of Homeland Security being gone. Should never have been created in the first place.
Reply Quote
6
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:30p, 8/15/23
AG
Since it was first, are you saying the Voting Rights Act is the clearest legal authority?
Reply Quote
6
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:33p, 8/15/23
aggiehawg said:
This board has been full of a lot of dumb since last night. I'm too old to suffer fools as lightly as I once did.

Today, my eyes rolled so far back up into my head, I'm surprised they didn't stay there, like my Mom always warned when I was a kid.

Not that I don't disagrre with your take at times too. I am an equal opportunity eye roller. Hope that doesn't offend you when I disagree. I'm really not sure about the veracity of your absolute immunity defense, for example. Arguments both ways, IMO.

But until SCOTUS addresss these issues instead of ducking them, we get to wander around in the woods behind small animals with no breadcrumbs showing the way.
Its not much of a discussion if we all just agree with each other. Never take offense when someone disagrees and offers the reasoning for it where I can learn where I might be offbase. You seem to go out of your way to educate folks and I appreciate that.

I understand my take on absolute immunity if on the edge, but since we are in completely uncharted waters and this is an internet message board, I don't hesitate to take a stance.

Its obvious we cannot have a POTUS with unchecked powers. However, what was done to Trump 2017 to 2021 was to use the Legislative branch and the Judiciary to try and subvert any authority the Executive had. A supposedly free press was complicit and even much of the Executive had no respect for the head of the Executive.

Now we see the current Executive doing totally inappropriate and unconstitutional things to a FPOTUS and current candidate, up to and including a low level state DA trying to convict former POTUS for alleged violations of their oath of office / official duties and doing so outside of the impeachment process, which is the only mechanism outlined in the US Constitution to hold a POTUS accountable for actions taken during office.

Like you, I think SCOTUS has been weak, feckless and way to passive in addressing these very serious issues. Like you, I have little hope they will correct their ducking and frankly the abdication of their responsibility under the US Constitution.
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 6:37p, 8/15/23
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
Since it was first, are you saying the Voting Rights Act is the clearest legal authority?
No, not at all. Just first thing that popped into my mind. Which you now believe DOJ has no authority anymore.

Not me.

Gotcha.
Reply Quote
3
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:40p, 8/15/23
AG
Talk about "ducking" a question, as you put it a few posts above
Reply Quote
5
annie88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:43p, 8/15/23
AG
And now this...

Just a clown show from beginning to end.

And the media will just say, "oh, okay, that explains it"

Sound like they're blaming the .... wait for it ... media.

Quote:
Georgia court offers new explanation for 'fictitious' indictment posted before Trump charges

Document describing charges in indictment against Trump, 18 others, appeared online before grand jury voted

The Fulton County Clerk of Courts Office is offering a new explanation for the supposed "fictitious" indictment posted on the Georgia court's website before a grand jury voted Monday to hand up an indictment for former President Trump and 18 others.

On Monday afternoon, the Fulton County Court's website posted a document that listed the same charges included in the indictment released late Monday night, which included charges of violating the Georgia RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, conspiracy to commit filing false documents and more.

It is still unclear why the "sample working document" and the "fictitious docket sheet" matched the exact charges brought against the former president and 18 others.
Quote:
Reuters first reported on the document before the Fulton County Court quickly removed it from the website and released a statement, blasting the document as "fictitious" and warning the media "that documents that do not bear an official case number, filing date, and the name of The Clerk of Courts, in concert, are not considered official filings and should not be treated as such."

No, I can't tell you anything about what you refer to," Willis said. "What I can tell you is that we had a grand jury here in Fulton County. They deliberated till almost 8 o'clock, if not right after 8 o'clock, an indictment was returned. It was true billed. And you now have an indictment."

The Office of the Fulton County Clerk of Superior and Magistrate Courts announces that midday on August 14, 2023, a media outlet utilizing the Fulton County Press que obtained a docket sheet and shared it with other media outlets who then released the sample working document related to the former United States President, Donald Trump reporting that an indictment had been returned by the Special Grand Jury in Fulton County Georgia," the statement reads.

"Upon learning of the mishap, Fulton County Clerk of Superior and Magistrate Courts, Ch Alexander, immediately removed the document and issued correspondence notifying the media that a fictitious document was in circulation and that no indictment had been returned by the Grand Jury."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-court-offers-new-explanation-fictitious-indictment-posted-before-trump-charges
Reply Quote
3
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:43p, 8/15/23
AG
To add more to this, I just read Mark Meadows' motion for removal. His motion doesn't cite any legal authority or make any claim relating to any legal authority for the White House to be involved in Georgia's electoral process. His argument is, literally, "my job was to arrange meetings and make phone calls for the President".

That reads to me as "blame the general, I was doing as ordered." Which usually doesn't bode well for the general.
Reply Quote
4
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 6:48p, 8/15/23
When the general did nothing wrong, then it usually works well for the general.

Except when the deck and judiciary are stacked against and utterly corrupt.
Reply Quote
5
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 6:52p, 8/15/23
AG
When I snort so hard that fluid comes out of my nose, you have achieved quite the goal. Eye rolls were one thing. But me snorting on my computer screen for that bad take takes the cake.

I snorted. Congrats.
Reply Quote
2
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:57p, 8/15/23
AG
aggiehawg said:
When I snort so hard that fluid comes out of my nose, you have achieved quite the goal. Eye rolls were one thing. But me snorting on my computer screen for that bad take takes the cake.

I snorted. Congrats.
Its a simple question. What's the best legal authority? Why can't you answer it?
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 7:02p, 8/15/23
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
aggiehawg said:
When I snort so hard that fluid comes out of my nose, you have achieved quite the goal. Eye rolls were one thing. But me snorting on my computer screen for that bad take takes the cake.

I snorted. Congrats.
Its a simple question. What's the best legal authority? Why can't you answer it?
I did answer. You just have no legal knowledge as to what I have posted.

Sooo, which branch (perhaps you might have enough legal training to know there are three) do agencies that oversee federal elections are tasked with enforcing?

Congress? Article I? Judiciary? Article III?

Your move, hoss.
Reply Quote
4
TheAngelFlight
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 7:02p, 8/15/23
If its removed, wouldn't the same prosecutor prosecute the case in Fulton County, just in a different court room with a different judge?

Is it a big deal, either way?
Reply Quote
2
blacksox
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 7:05p, 8/15/23
fka ftc said:
aggiehawg said:
TXAggie2011 said:
It will be a Hail Mary shot, to say the least, to successfully argue most (or any) of this was within his official duties as President
Really? How do you figure that a President, as the unitary executive, has no responsibility to ensure free and fair elections? Because every single agency at the federal level that have those responsibilites are within the Executive Branch. Article II.

<sigh>
More than the other BS cases, its pretty clear Trump has immunity here and that immunity will extend to all the co-conspirators.

"I was instructing investigations into the election integrity in the United States whilst carrying out my official duties as President of the United States."

Period. End of story. Case dismissed.

Else, we are going straight to a full-fledged constitutional crisis.


How about "no"?
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheAngelFlight • 7:07p, 8/15/23
AG
TheAngelFlight said:
If its removed, wouldn't the same prosecutor prosecute the case in Fulton County, just in a different court room with a different judge?

Is it a big deal, either way?
No. She's a lowly county prosecutor, probably not even licensed in federal district cour (which is not that hard BTW as I was licensed in many) but she doesn't know those local rules as well.

More likely a US Attorney takes over if it get removes.

I say "if" because that state judge is compromised.
Reply Quote
2
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheAngelFlight • 7:08p, 8/15/23
AG
TheAngelFlight said:
If its removed, wouldn't the same prosecutor prosecute the case in Fulton County, just in a different court room with a different judge?

Is it a big deal, either way?
Yes to the first question.

Might depend on the second question.
Reply Quote
1 edit
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 7:15p, 8/15/23
AG
fka ftc said:
aggiehawg said:
This board has been full of a lot of dumb since last night. I'm too old to suffer fools as lightly as I once did.

Today, my eyes rolled so far back up into my head, I'm surprised they didn't stay there, like my Mom always warned when I was a kid.

Not that I don't disagrre with your take at times too. I am an equal opportunity eye roller. Hope that doesn't offend you when I disagree. I'm really not sure about the veracity of your absolute immunity defense, for example. Arguments both ways, IMO.

But until SCOTUS addresss these issues instead of ducking them, we get to wander around in the woods behind small animals with no breadcrumbs showing the way.
Its not much of a discussion if we all just agree with each other. Never take offense when someone disagrees and offers the reasoning for it where I can learn where I might be offbase. You seem to go out of your way to educate folks and I appreciate that.

I understand my take on absolute immunity if on the edge, but since we are in completely uncharted waters and this is an internet message board, I don't hesitate to take a stance.

Its obvious we cannot have a POTUS with unchecked powers. However, what was done to Trump 2017 to 2021 was to use the Legislative branch and the Judiciary to try and subvert any authority the Executive had. A supposedly free press was complicit and even much of the Executive had no respect for the head of the Executive.

Now we see the current Executive doing totally inappropriate and unconstitutional things to a FPOTUS and current candidate, up to and including a low level state DA trying to convict former POTUS for alleged violations of their oath of office / official duties and doing so outside of the impeachment process, which is the only mechanism outlined in the US Constitution to hold a POTUS accountable for actions taken during office.

Like you, I think SCOTUS has been weak, feckless and way to passive in addressing these very serious issues. Like you, I have little hope they will correct their ducking and frankly the abdication of their responsibility under the US Constitution.
Roberts is hopelessly compromised. Until he is gone, don't look for any leadership from SCOTUS to the detriment of democrat power in DC.
Reply Quote
2
TheAngelFlight
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 7:19p, 8/15/23
aggiehawg said:
TheAngelFlight said:
If its removed, wouldn't the same prosecutor prosecute the case in Fulton County, just in a different court room with a different judge?

Is it a big deal, either way?
No. She's a lowly county prosecutor, probably not even licensed in federal district cour (which is not that hard BTW as I was licensed in many) but she doesn't know those local rules as well.

More likely a US Attorney takes over if it get removes.

I say "if" because that state judge is compromised.
US Attorneys don't represent the State of Georgia, so I don't see why they would take over the case. That doesn't make any sense.
Reply Quote
2
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:26p, 8/15/23
It's interesting that in the days after the 2020 election SCOTUS said other states like Texas had no standing when saying they were aggrieved (or whatever the right word is) by other states changing their voting procedures, rules, laws.

Now 3 years later the legal scholar Miss Fanj Willis thinks that POTUS, head of the Executive branch and responsible for enforcing laws / regulations asking questions of state leges regarding the voting procedures in other states has caused an issue in her state that she can prosecute:

That is how terrible the logic and legal theories are here.

Completely and utterly out of bounds. I hope she is ultimately removed from office, disbarred and jailed for eternity. Dumb feckless kernt.
Reply Quote
4
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheAngelFlight • 7:37p, 8/15/23
AG
TheAngelFlight said:
aggiehawg said:
TheAngelFlight said:
If its removed, wouldn't the same prosecutor prosecute the case in Fulton County, just in a different court room with a different judge?

Is it a big deal, either way?
No. She's a lowly county prosecutor, probably not even licensed in federal district cour (which is not that hard BTW as I was licensed in many) but she doesn't know those local rules as well.

More likely a US Attorney takes over if it get removes.

I say "if" because that state judge is compromised.
US Attorneys don't represent the State of Georgia, so I don't see why they would take over the case. That doesn't make any sense.
Right. Removal doesn't change the crimes nor the parties to the case. It just changes the forum. Fani Willis or whoever was going to prosecute it in state court would do the same in federal court (and would get their bar admission to the NDGA if necessary, those unhinged ramblings above aside.)
Reply Quote
1 edit
itsyourboypookie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:38p, 8/15/23
https://x.com/grantcardone/status/1691294959037489152?s=46&t=e_dYlW6TvdenzOQX_TKsSA
Reply Quote
annie88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:54p, 8/15/23
AG
This is interesting.



Quote:
Georgia has a newly-created law enabling a panel to remove DAs who are derelict or unethical in their duties.

This panel came into existence in July. It starts accepting complaints on October 1. If the very first complaint isn't a damning case against Fani Willis and her illegal, anti-constitutional stunt, then Republicans deserve their subsequent fate.
Reply Quote
3
Nanomachines son
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:57p, 8/15/23


Absolutely, it's become obvious.
Reply Quote
Agsrback12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:00p, 8/15/23
This is hilarious. All of it.

Reply Quote
annie88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:10p, 8/15/23
AG
A little levity, but not far from the truth.

Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:27p, 8/15/23
AG
https://rumble.com/v37ys8m-trump-indictment-disaster-prosecutors-reject-hunter-immunity-dems-celebrate.html

They have lied. No consequences. And if you or anyone doubts that, they have an IQ of the normal Biden voter. under 75.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.