Latest on Meadows' removal. H/t @KingMakerFT Basically, there is enough in the document that federal court isn't going to just hand it back to state court but must have an "evidentiary hearing" to decide if statute allows for removal. pic.twitter.com/hkRtJR7tQ1

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 17, 2023

oh no said:

---

Of the 30 cases decided on their merits, Trump and his allies were victorious 22 times (73%).

This completely debunks the false narrative that the courts found the 2020 election to be secure and accurate.

---

BREAKING: Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis is seeking for a March 4, 2024 trial date for Donald Trump, right in the middle of election season.

They are actively interfering in the 2024 election right in front of your eyes and they don't even care.

Earlier this week, Willis acted… pic.twitter.com/Q9T7ikLjNq

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 16, 2023

will25u said:

---

Georgia State Sen. Colton Moore: “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 weaponize their elected offices to politically target their… pic.twitter.com/UjAA77VqHh

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) August 17, 2023

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

First, whether or not Mr. Trump believes he lost the election (either now or when he engaged in racketeering) is irrelevant. If I believe the bank owes me $50,000, it is against the law for me to rob the bank. Even if I am in fact correct about the bank owing me the money, it's still against the law. And, if I use a handgun to rob the bank, it's an even more severe crime of armed robbery, even though the second amendment protects my right to possess a gun.

[[If you call the bank manager and complain about being owed money, is that against the law? What if you ask them to recount your funds? Racketeering involves committing crimes. Trump held meetings and made phone calls. Those are not crimes]]

In addition, I doubt anyone believes the election was completely without fraud (kinda of like completely without sin, amirite?). Again, more straw for the strawman.

[[People still have no idea what a strawman is. If there is just a hint of fraud, then Trump was well within his rights to ask for recounts, to challenge the results in court, to ask state leges and his attorneys to pursue all LEGAL courses of action, which is what was done]]

Second, Georgia most certainly does have a right to protect the State's elected officials from being extorted into violating their election laws. The only way Raffensperger could "find" 11,780 votes on January 2, 2021 would be to break the law.

[[In late 2020 and early 2021, SCOTUS said that other states had no standing to sue states who illegally changed their voting standards and processes. You also have no idea what extortion is. How in the hell did Trump "extort" anyone? Regarding finding votes, uncounted votes, miscounted votes, improperly counted votes, and votes improperly set aside are found in every election from student council to POTUS - what a ridiculous take to say one has to break the law when ensuring all valid, eligible votes are counted]]

The State of Georgia is not adjudicating another state's laws on "fake and false" electors, but is going to use it as evidence for conspiracy in an illegal enterprise. The RICO act gives the state that right. But, you know that, right?

[[Georgia is using its state RICO law not federal law. So no, Georgia state law does not give it jurisdiction in other states. Thanks for clearly showing you have either not read the indictment or simply do not understand the charges.]]

If Mr. Trump wants to base a defense based on his official duties allowing him to "create a conspiracy undertaken to install fake and false electors in contravention of the States (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan) rightfully determining the legitimate winner of their electoral votes," he has every right to make that argument. I don't think it will hold water, though. He better hope his other avenues of defense are a bit stronger.

[[Now we have a strawman. Trump is not going to say his official duties allows him to commit crimes. He will say his official duties allows him to look at all legal and constitutional approaches to ensure elections are conducted in accordance with the laws of the Country.]]

Nobody is attacking Mr. Trump's right to question voting results, no matter how hard you want to shout it or how many times you repeat it. It is the actual crimes that were committed that are being prosecuted.

[[MSM, the left, most CMs, RINOs, squishy Rs, weak-kneed folks, and most all MSM and FNC pundits seem to absolutely be saying Trump has no right to question the election. What crimes do you think Trump actually committed? Because Miss WIllis is making **** up in her indictment and will be laughed out of court.]]
Maybe wait until more talking points are out so you can better back up your arguments and make better strawmen.

---

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

Quote:

---

(b) The Governor shall convene the General Assembly in special session for all purposes whenever three-fifths of the members to which each house is entitled certify to the Governor in writing, with a copy to the Secretary of State, that in their opinion an emergency exists in the affairs of the state. The General Assembly may convene itself if, after receiving such certification, the Governor fails to do so within three days, excluding Sundays.

---

TRM said:

---

The acts aren't criminal but go towards the plot. Like buying duct tape or rope isn't illegal, but it's a part of a kidnapping plot.

---

will25u said:

---

Latest on Meadows' removal. H/t @KingMakerFT Basically, there is enough in the document that federal court isn't going to just hand it back to state court but must have an "evidentiary hearing" to decide if statute allows for removal. pic.twitter.com/hkRtJR7tQ1

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 17, 2023

---

Ags77 said:

---

All the indictments will be thrown out after trump's Monday press conference.

---

I have some not easy news to share.

Are you sitting down?

That press conference Donald Trump promised us on Monday that he said would exonerate him….

….It looks like the press conference now isn’t happening.

— Evan (@daviddunn177) August 17, 2023

TXAggie2011 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Latest on Meadows' removal. H/t @KingMakerFT Basically, there is enough in the document that federal court isn't going to just hand it back to state court but must have an "evidentiary hearing" to decide if statute allows for removal. pic.twitter.com/hkRtJR7tQ1

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 17, 2023

---

Yeah, that's not surprising. Meadows' argument was pretty thin. It doesn't cite any substantive executive branch authorities. It doesn't claim Meadows believed he was working on upholding the Voting Rights Act or anything else, or cite the Take Care clause or anything like that. But rather, as I said the other day, takes the "I was doing what my boss told me to do" approach. It argues setting up meetings and phone calls on behalf of the President was part of his job, but it doesn't connect the purpose of those meetings to an official government purpose.

We'll see. The removal law provides the benefit of doubt to the defendant. (As it should). But, an evidentiary hearing does need to be held here to help parse out whether Meadows was truly, colorable-y acting in an official capacity or a political/campaigning capacity.

That Meadows was offering to have the Trump campaign fund some of the things he was calling about, suggests he was in campaign mode and not executive branch governance mode. That most of the folks involved in the efforts weren't government employees certainly doesn't suggest these were actual official government efforts.

I don't think it quite passes the sniff test that these folks were doing this in official capacities. They were doing it for Trump the candidate to get re-elected, and that by definition isn't an official government capacity.

---

🚨BREAKING EXCLUSIVE🚨

Speaker Newt Gingrich joined me this morning and shared a remarkable story. If true, someone from DC called Fani Willis and demanded she indict Trump on Monday. Why? To cover up for the Weiss "screw up."

This would explain the late night press… pic.twitter.com/wgHSbsA8Bf

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 17, 2023

LMCane said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

If it is taken up by the Northern District of GA it will give a better chance of an unbiased jury instead of just Gwinnett county.

---

LMCane said:

---

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

---

LMCane said:

---

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

---

LMCane said:

---

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

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

LMCane said:

---

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

---

Love him even harder.

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

LMCane said:

---

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

---

Wait for the appeals courts to overturn them which they surely will. Biased law enforcement, prosecutors, judges and juries are reckoned with.

---

Opalka said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

LMCane said:

---

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

---

Wait for the appeals courts to overturn them which they surely will. Biased law enforcement, prosecutors, judges and juries are reckoned with.

---

No, they won't be overturned. EVERYONE is biased, if they don't support Trump. We get it.

---

Quote:

---

Why has DA Willis invoked Georgia's version of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which is typically applied to mobsters engaged in the familiar rackets of murder, extortion, trafficking in narcotics and stolen goods, gambling, prostitution and so on? Because there's a giant hole in her case: the lack of a clear crime to which Trump and his co-defendants can plausibly be said to have agreed.

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.

---

Quote:

---

If prosecutors allege a large-scale conspiracy, various conspirators may play different roles. In a conspiracy to sell cocaine, for example, some people may handle importation; others handle sales or security, and still others, accounting and management of the cash proceeds. But what unites these role-players in a single conspiracy is the criminal objective in our example, to sell cocaine. If there is no agreement about a crime, there is no conspiracy.

---

Quote:

---

Usually, this is not a problem for prosecutors. While constitutional due process guarantees that every American is presumed innocent, it also dictates that no American can be charged with a crime and forced to stand trial unless there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

As a result, even though prosecutors bear the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt before there can be a conviction, we can easily understand why the defendants have been charged. If they are charged with conspiracy, the indictment will clearly state the crime they allegedly agreed to commit e.g., drug trafficking, bank robbery, murder, extortion. Whatever the objective crime may be, we understand that the prosecutors, the police, and the grand jury have established to the court's satisfaction that there is enough evidence to establish probable cause that the alleged conspirators agreed to commit a crime.

---

Quote:

---

To be clear, it's entirely possible that people can perform criminal acts in the pursuit of a lawful objective. If they do, they may be charged with those crimes and if the crimes are serious, they should be charged. That, however, does not mean their overarching objective was a crime. And again, if you don't have two or more people agreeing on an objective that is a crime, you don't have a conspiracy.

---

Quote:

---

Willis tries to get around this inconvenience in two ways, neither of which works.

The first is a tautology: She conclusively asserts, on page 14 of the indictment, that this was a "conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump." That is, the lawful objective of changing the election outcome somehow becomes unlawful because she invokes the apparently talismanic word "unlawful." But there is no crime of unlawfully trying to change an election outcome not in Georgia law nor any other American law.

Willis thus turns to her second artifice, the RICO conspiracy charge. RICO is unique in the criminal law because, instead of targeting crimes, it targets entities associations of people, referred to as enterprises that generate revenue through the commission of crimes. The offense is not so much the crimes (referred to as the pattern of racketeering activity), but the enterprise (such as a mafia family) that carries out the crimes. A RICO conspiracy is an agreement to participate in such an enterprise to belong to the group and sustain the group so that it continues to generate power and profits.

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.

---

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

---

aggiehawg said:

---

… deleted to save space…..
LINK

So where is the crime?

---