TexasAggie73 said:

---

Maybe trust in the court system and the appeal process. This is not like a Russian court. Some here get over dramatic about all this. Again, why not let the court do its work. If the court has the proof that laws were broken, then let them do their work. Let it play out and see what the repeal process goes. If I was DeSantis at this point, it might be my only hope.

---

Trust in the court system? Innocent people get crushed all the time by the system. Corrupt cops, corrupt DAs, incompetent and ideological Judges, and finally stupid jury's that are biased. LOL, "trust the court system", got any more bits?

Any system run by people cannot be trusted.

TexasAggie73 said:

---

I don't understand something. Many on here do not want Trump to be the R nomination as they believe it would lead to another D win, but are all upset with all the court proceeding. Wouldn't the easiest path for Trump to be out of the running , that he is leading far and away, is to have him disqualified?

---

I like DeSantis as much as the next guy, but sitting back and watching America go full Marxist as they arrest the regime's most popular political opponent ahead of the next election and being satisfied because a different anti-communist candidate that I like better can be nominated to lose to the regime in a rigged system in this Mickey Mouse banana republic country seems like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

samurai_science said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

Maybe trust in the court system and the appeal process. This is not like a Russian court. Some here get over dramatic about all this. Again, why not let the court do its work. If the court has the proof that laws were broken, then let them do their work. Let it play out and see what the repeal process goes. If I was DeSantis at this point, it might be my only hope.

---

Trust in the court system? Innocent people get crushed all the time by the system. Corrupt cops, corrupt DAs, incompetent and ideological Judges, and finally stupid jury's that are biased. LOL, "trust the court system", got any more bits?

Any system run by people cannot be trusted.

---

Do you have any suggestions for a better system or are you Dayton just throw it all out?

oh no said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

I don't understand something. Many on here do not want Trump to be the R nomination as they believe it would lead to another D win, but are all upset with all the court proceeding. Wouldn't the easiest path for Trump to be out of the running , that he is leading far and away, is to have him disqualified?

---

I like DeSantis as much as the next guy, but sitting back and watching America go full Marxist as they arrest the regime's most popular political opponent ahead of the next election and being satisfied because a different anti-communist candidate that I like better can be nominated to lose to the regime in a rigged system in this Mickey Mouse banana republic country seems like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

---

If the most popular political opponent broke the law, he should be punished. Look what happened to Nixon.

9:00 CDT evidentiary hearing today in federal court on meadows motion to remove (saying case should be heard on federal court, not state court)

Meadows says he was acting in his capacity as chief of staff so case should be in federal court. Georgia says his actions violated hatch act as he's not allowed to be involved in election so has to be outside the scope of his duties.

If meadows wins, Trump will follow to federal court for sure. If he loses, Trump still has good arguments as to why his case should be removed.

...The question is whether the broad aggregation of over 160 acts in the indictment raise some arguably official functions for Meadows. While threshold constitutional questions may have to wait for a verdict, this question could lead to an appeal on the scope of the underlying…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 28, 2023

Old Army Metal said:

---

If the person I voted for is guilty of a crime, me voting for them does not mean I think they should not pay for their transgressions.

Have at it. Go nuts.

---

Well good for you. We should appoint you "Integrity King" to rule over all the corrupt politicians, of which there are many.

stallion6 said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

If the person I voted for is guilty of a crime, me voting for them does not mean I think they should not pay for their transgressions.

Have at it. Go nuts.

---

Well good for you. We should appoint you "Integrity King" to rule over all the corrupt politicians, of which there are many.

---

Name 5 democrats in office now that for this bill?

Apparently, Meadows is taking the stand at the hearing. He's going all in on this.

Missed this earlier.

JUST IN: Brad RAFFENSPERGER and election investigator Frances WATSON have been subpoenaed to testify at Monday’s federal court hearing on charges against Meadows. This is shaping up to be a mini-trial pic.twitter.com/fHX9fcR5vg

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 24, 2023

What is your opinion on this action?

jt2hunt said:

---

What is your opinion on this action?

---

I think it gets removed but never can tell.

aggiehawg said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

What is your opinion on this action?

---

I think it gets removed but never can tell.

---

What do we know about the judge hearing the motion? I would almost guess that it gets denied at the local level then overturned upon appeal.

I think these non-federal employees have a much harder argument to make on removing the case to federal court.

JUST IN: Judge Steve Jones has ordered an evidentiary hearing for two more of Trump's Georgia codefendants seeking to move their cases to federal court.

David Shafer and Cathleen Latham — who both posed as electors — will make their case on 9/20.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 29, 2023

TexasAggie73 said:

---

oh no said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

I don't understand something. Many on here do not want Trump to be the R nomination as they believe it would lead to another D win, but are all upset with all the court proceeding. Wouldn't the easiest path for Trump to be out of the running , that he is leading far and away, is to have him disqualified?

---

I like DeSantis as much as the next guy, but sitting back and watching America go full Marxist as they arrest the regime's most popular political opponent ahead of the next election and being satisfied because a different anti-communist candidate that I like better can be nominated to lose to the regime in a rigged system in this Mickey Mouse banana republic country seems like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

---

If the most popular political opponent broke the law, he should be punished. Look what happened to Nixon.

---

Trump got impeached the first time for this opinion.

Judge asking for additional briefing on Meadows. It sounds like the judge believes at least but not all of his acts have a colorable connection to his office.

DA will point to case law requiring defendant did "only what was necessary" to fulfill his duty while Meadows will obviously argue one act is enough.

JUST IN: An interesting order was just entered by Judge Jones regarding Mark Meadows’ attempt to remove his case to federal court. pic.twitter.com/jd1vIrsdpP

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) August 29, 2023

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Judge asking for additional briefing on Meadows. It sounds like the judge believes at least but not all of his acts have a colorable connection to his office.

DA will point to case law requiring defendant did "only what was necessary" to fulfill his duty while Meadows will obviously argue one act is enough.

JUST IN: An interesting order was just entered by Judge Jones regarding Mark Meadows’ attempt to remove his case to federal court. pic.twitter.com/jd1vIrsdpP

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) August 29, 2023

---

This seems to be the principal determination the judge is required to make. Does he lack confidence in his knowledge to decide the question he raised? Or, is he looking for one or the other side to suggest a straw to which he can cling to make the "desired" ruling?

It's a complicated legal question and it's normal for judges to seek additional briefing on tougher issues.

I'm not an expert on removal law, but I've looked at the cases both sides have been citing and some of the underlying major cases. I personally think they weigh against Meadows but it's a fair question by the judge as most case law deals with one incident versus a series of many acts/incidences.

This will give Meadows' team a chance to make a "policy argument" about the underlying principals of removal. There's a policy argument to be made about removing cases "partially" connected to official duties. I would welcome that chance if I were them.

Quote:

---

This seems to be the principal determination the judge is required to make. Does he lack confidence in his knowledge to decide the question he raised? Or, is he looking for one or the other side to suggest a straw to which he can cling to make the "desired" ruling?

---

A couple of thoughts off the top of my head. One act within his offical duties could be the basis for a discretionary ruling to remove as to Meadows but is not required to remove. Willis could also just dismiss one or more of the charges against Meadows to keep the case in state court but she will face a similar problem with Trump and Asst. AG Clark on removal.

Willis overshot the runway with that broad and sweeping of an indictment and now she'll face some battles to keep it going and within her control, in my view.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It's a complicated legal question and it's normal for judges to seek additional briefing on tougher issues.

I'm not an expert on removal law, but I've looked at the cases both sides have been citing and some of the underlying major cases. I personally think they weigh against Meadows but it's a fair question by the judge as most case law deals with one incident versus a series of many acts/incidences.

This will give Meadows' team a chance to make a "policy argument" about the underlying principals of removal. There's a policy argument to be made about removing cases "partially" connected to official duties. I would welcome that chance if I were them.

---

Thanks for your insight.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This seems to be the principal determination the judge is required to make. Does he lack confidence in his knowledge to decide the question he raised? Or, is he looking for one or the other side to suggest a straw to which he can cling to make the "desired" ruling?

---

A couple of thoughts off the top of my head. One act within his offical duties could be the basis for a discretionary ruling to remove as to Meadows but is not required to remove. Willis could also just dismiss one or more of the charges against Meadows to keep the case in state court but she will face a similar problem with Trump and Asst. AG Clark on removal.

Willis overshot the runway with that broad and sweeping of an indictment and now she'll face some battles to keep it going and within her control, in my view.

---

Thanks for your informed opinion.

John Eastman is not backing down:

"We did nothing wrong." pic.twitter.com/J6rdUnS9ep

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) August 30, 2023

This should be scaring the hell out of everybody. Asking lawyer for advice, legal avenues available even those with minimal chances of success is not a crime, neither for the client nor the lawyer.

In my own practice, had a construction company client who did public works projects. He was screwed out of a project due to bid rgging and came to me to sue the city. But at tat time, the law gave the city sovereign immunity, so I advised him would lose and suggested we go to the DA to report it. Now this was an older guy who had been around the block in dealing with the city for decades. He knew unless he had solid evidence, nothing would happen and needed the discovery to obtain that evidence and build more of a criminal case. At that point, I advised we might not even make it to discovery, if the judge dismissed the case on sovereign immunity immediately. He still insisted on having his day in court. So, I sued the city.

I was able to explain to the judge during argument on the motion to dismiss that although our case was a civil case we had evidence that strongly suggested criminal activity on the part of one or more city employees and sovereign immunity does not make that go away and we were entitled to that discovery. Knowing that the judge allowed the case to go forward. Going into that hearing, I had a one percent confidence rate that it would not be dismissed. I just happened to get a judge that really didn't like public corruption.

We went to a bench trial. After trial, the judge addressed my client directly, telling him we had presented a persuasive and compelling case but unfortunately the law did not allow her to award any monetary damages to him. He told the judge he had understood that all along but wanted his day in court.

Several people in the city engineer's office were fired and the competing construction company that had bribed them went out of business.

Now by doing what my client asked and zealously representing him, irrespective of the chances of recovery warrant my having a bar complaint and possible disbarment?

Computer trespass (Count 35) requires the knowing use of the computer "without authority"

Big problem for prosecutors: the local election board granted access and supervised/directed the technical activities. pic.twitter.com/fLADofaZmO

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) August 30, 2023

Explain it to me like I'm sexy

— FOOL NELSON (@FOOL_NELSON) August 30, 2023

will25u said:

---

Computer trespass (Count 35) requires the knowing use of the computer "without authority"

Big problem for prosecutors: the local election board granted access and supervised/directed the technical activities. pic.twitter.com/fLADofaZmO

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) August 30, 2023

---

Said that when the indictment first dropped. They had permission and an express invitation. Further, co defendant Cathy Latham was present at the Douglas Precinct in Coffee County on the night of the Jan 5th runoff when they were trying to tabulate ballots but the machine kept jamming and giving a QR CODE FAILURE message. As they were calling the Dominion tech for assistance, they set the ballots receiving that code message aside for later tabulating when the issue was resolved. As she and another worker were placing them into a separated pile, they noticed that all of the rejected ballots had selected the GOP candidate for Senate.

After being instructed to wipe the scanner area and blow some compressed air on the eye, by the Dominion tech over the phone while he was en route to their location. They did that multipel times and did tests but the same ballots still had the same code message. By the time the tech arrived tempers were rising and the supervisor ordered the tech to call his boss right away and put him on speakerphone. Supervisor told the Dominion boss he was going to call the press and have a press conference about the issues unless the problem was fixed within 30 minutes. At that point, the tech stepped outside to continue his conversation with his boss (off speakerphone).

Several minutes later, the tech came back in and was all smiles. He instructed them to wipe it down and blow air again while he stood next to the tabulator with his phone in his hand next to but not touching the machine. Guess what? It worked. As the tech sauntered out quite pleased with himself, the election worers looked at each other, "What the hell just happened? Is that tabulator internet enabled to get wifi thru a smartphone?"

So they had a good basis to be suspicious.

Meanwhile, back in state court, the issue discussed a couple pages back on what the Chesebro speedy trial means for everyone else has come to a head.

Anyone know where these filings can be seen? I wonder what rights and discovery they are allegedly giving up? Remember, this is a speedy trial demand under a Georgia statute, not the U.S. Constitution, which is why they are entitled to an October trial.

Fani Willis is not only asking Judge Scott McAfee to clarify the impact of his speedy trial order re: Chesebro on other defendants and at the very least, to set a briefing schedule on severance motions if he does not intend to try all defendants together, but this morning, she is…

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) August 31, 2023

In other words, she wants the judge to confirm that they appreciate what rights and discovery they could forfeit by demanding that their trials start on Oct. 23. 3/

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) August 31, 2023

Quote:

---

Said that when the indictment first dropped. They had permission and an express invitation.

---

Per the Georgia Statute the trespass has to be "with knowledge that such use is without authority." Sounds like the defendants actually had authority here, but at the least thought they did. Fani trying to cram a square peg in a round hole in my view.

Im Gipper said:

---

Anyone know where these filings can be seen? I wonder what rights and discovery they are allegedly giving up?

---

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23932776/trump-speedy-trial.pdf

[ol]

The Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State's discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. App. 88, 90 (2002); Ruffv. State, 266 Ga. App. 694, 695 (2004);

The Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to notice of the State's similar transaction evidence ten (10) days in advance of trial. Brown v. State, 275 Ga. App. 281, 287 (2005);

The Defendants are now precluded from calling any witnesses whose statements were not provided to the State at least ten (10) days in advance of trial. Clark v. State, 271 Ga. App. 534, 536 (2005); and

The Defendants cannot now complain that they received less than seven (7) days notice of the trial date in this case. Linkous v. State, 254 Ga. App. 43, 47 (2002).

[/ol]

I haven't figured that out, but if you search "23SC188947" you'll get any documents that have been uploaded to documentcloud or another hosting service.

Im Gipper said:

---

Meanwhile, back in state court, the issue discussed a couple pages back on what the Chesebro speedy trial means for everyone else has come to a head.

Anyone know where these filings can be seen? I wonder what rights and discovery they are allegedly giving up? Remember, this is a speedy trial demand under a Georgia statute, not the U.S. Constitution, which is why they are entitled to an October trial.

Fani Willis is not only asking Judge Scott McAfee to clarify the impact of his speedy trial order re: Chesebro on other defendants and at the very least, to set a briefing schedule on severance motions if he does not intend to try all defendants together, but this morning, she is…

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) August 31, 2023

In other words, she wants the judge to confirm that they appreciate what rights and discovery they could forfeit by demanding that their trials start on Oct. 23. 3/

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) August 31, 2023

---

What right to discovery are they forfeiting by asking for a speedy trial? Should they have the same right to full discovery no matter when the trial is scheduled? Willis has had 3 years to try to build this case and rushed the indictments through the grand jury within a day or two after her call from DC. Is she saying she can't work fast enough to satisfy discovery now?

No, she's arguing that deadlines for turning over information prior to trial won't apply. They will still get all of it, but it reads like the state can dump it on them the day before trial if they want to.

etxag02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Anyone know where these filings can be seen? I wonder what rights and discovery they are allegedly giving up?

---

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23932776/trump-speedy-trial.pdf

[ol]

The Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State's discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. App. 88, 90 (2002); Ruffv. State, 266 Ga. App. 694, 695 (2004);

The Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to notice of the State's similar transaction evidence ten (10) days in advance of trial. Brown v. State, 275 Ga. App. 281, 287 (2005);

The Defendants are now precluded from calling any witnesses whose statements were not provided to the State at least ten (10) days in advance of trial. Clark v. State, 271 Ga. App. 534, 536 (2005); and

The Defendants cannot now complain that they received less than seven (7) days notice of the trial date in this case. Linkous v. State, 254 Ga. App. 43, 47 (2002).

[/ol]

---

That is strange. Seems to punish a defendant for exercising a constitutional right. And what is the basis for those changes? If they are required to provide witness statements to the state at least 10 days in advance, is the state also precluded from using evidence or calling witnesses that they didn't provide to the defense at least 10 days ahead of trial? If not, it seems the process is unfairly stacked against a defendant who is to be presumed innocent and has a constitutional right to a speedy trial.

HTownAg98 said:

---

No, she's arguing that deadlines for turning over information prior to trial won't apply.

---

Based on what is posted above, the process seems stacked against the defendant. The state no longer has to meet those deadlines ahead of the trial, but the defense is precluded from calling witnesses whose statements were not provided at least 10 days in advance. Seems to me that if they are waiving the pretrial discovery deadlines, they should waive them on both sides, not just for the state.

HTownAg98 said:

---

No, she's arguing that deadlines for turning over information prior to trial won't apply. They will still get all of it, but it reads like the state can dump it on them the day before trial if they want to.

---

And we can be certain that's what they'll do. This is what happens in banana republics.

You're turned around. The Defense is waiving their rights with their speedy trial demand. The State is requesting the Court advise the Defendants of the effects of their speedy trial demands.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

No, she's arguing that deadlines for turning over information prior to trial won't apply. They will still get all of it, but it reads like the state can dump it on them the day before trial if they want to.

---

And we can be certain that's what they'll do. This is what happens in banana republics.

---

Exactly. They will dump it all last minute, and then the defense is precluded from calling any witnesses to counter it because they didn't meet their 10 day deadline.