Guilt by association, TV ratings, Orange Man Bad, and election interference in a swing state.
Pending indictment against Trump in Georgia
220,186 Views |
2442 Replies |
Last: 9 days ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
MAGA Lawyer, Lin Wood, flips against Trump in the Racketeering case in Georgia.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maga-lawyer-lin-wood-turns-142939667.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maga-lawyer-lin-wood-turns-142939667.html
Lin Wood turns out to be listed as a witness by the state. ooooh he must have flipped on Trump!!! can't wait to see Trump imprisoned so Americans can't vote for him!!!!! (to protect our democracy of course)
but wait! i was told this guy Lin Wood has zero credibility! How is the court supposed to believe him now?
I bet he's going to confirm some of the "overt acts" that led to the conspiracy to prove a presidential candidate should be imprisoned. Overt acts like retweeting a tweet, or booking a conference room, or asking someone for a phone number.
but wait! i was told this guy Lin Wood has zero credibility! How is the court supposed to believe him now?
I bet he's going to confirm some of the "overt acts" that led to the conspiracy to prove a presidential candidate should be imprisoned. Overt acts like retweeting a tweet, or booking a conference room, or asking someone for a phone number.
Explains why he wasn't indicted. There'll be more flippers.
He gave up his law license in lieu of being prosecuted.agz win said:
Explains why he wasn't indicted. There'll be more flippers.
If you are building your case on the testimony of Lin Wood, you may be doing it quite wrong.
As enemies of our marixst regime, a lot of attorneys that dared to represent Trump, a Trump associate, a J6 defendant, etc. are being attacked, lawfared, and bankrupted into silence or "flipping". Such a wonderful democracy they are protecting.aggiehawg said:He gave up his law license in lieu of being prosecuted.agz win said:
Explains why he wasn't indicted. There'll be more flippers.
More good news for Trump:
Former MAGA attorney Lin Wood is a witness for the state in Georgia's election interference RICO case against the former president and 18 others.
Wood, who retired from practicing law earlier this year to avoid disbarment, worked as a member of Trump's legal team in the aftermath of the 2020 election and heavily promoted claims that the election had been rigged against the former president.
According to a Wednesday filing to the Fulton County Superior Court, which seeks a resolution to potential conflicts of interest between attorneys for Trump and several of his co-defendants, Wood is a witness for the prosecution.
Former MAGA attorney Lin Wood is a witness for the state in Georgia's election interference RICO case against the former president and 18 others.
Wood, who retired from practicing law earlier this year to avoid disbarment, worked as a member of Trump's legal team in the aftermath of the 2020 election and heavily promoted claims that the election had been rigged against the former president.
According to a Wednesday filing to the Fulton County Superior Court, which seeks a resolution to potential conflicts of interest between attorneys for Trump and several of his co-defendants, Wood is a witness for the prosecution.
Thanks for repeating what was posted above. I was skeptical it was true until it had the LM Cane Trump Hatin seal of approval.LMCane said:
More good news for Trump:
Former MAGA attorney Lin Wood is a witness for the state in Georgia's election interference RICO case against the former president and 18 others.
Wood, who retired from practicing law earlier this year to avoid disbarment, worked as a member of Trump's legal team in the aftermath of the 2020 election and heavily promoted claims that the election had been rigged against the former president.
According to a Wednesday filing to the Fulton County Superior Court, which seeks a resolution to potential conflicts of interest between attorneys for Trump and several of his co-defendants, Wood is a witness for the prosecution.
This doesn't automatically mean what people are implying. Lin Wood is a resident in Georgia and subject to a state court subpoena. His being on a witness list could simply mean they will subpoena him when the time comes.Quote:
Wood is a witness for the prosecution.
Or not subpoena him, which may very well be there intent. The things, the injustices being done in these cases for nothing more than shaping public opinion regarding an opposing candidate for POTUS is absolutely disgusting and un-American.aggiehawg said:This doesn't automatically mean what people are implying. Lin Wood is a resident in Georgia and subject to a state court subpoena. His being on a witness list could simply mean they will subpoena him when the time comes.Quote:
Wood is a witness for the prosecution.
With a very important witness, a prosecutor will take no chances they agree but then don't show up. They almost always have a subpoena ready for them.fka ftc said:Or not subpoena him, which may very well be there intent. The things, the injustices being done in these cases for nothing more than shaping public opinion regarding an opposing candidate for POTUS is absolutely disgusting and un-American.aggiehawg said:This doesn't automatically mean what people are implying. Lin Wood is a resident in Georgia and subject to a state court subpoena. His being on a witness list could simply mean they will subpoena him when the time comes.Quote:
Wood is a witness for the prosecution.
Most generally, its economic for the prosecutors to the Court to witnesses to keep it all together and present the same case once instead of multiple times. Indeed, Courts have been provided the power to and more than infrequently join criminal cases together for economic reasons.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?
I don't know that she's "hell bent" on it or not, but she has every right to litigate for her desired outcome just as hard as the defendant's have every right to litigate for their desired outcome.
Opalka said:
MAGA Lawyer, Lin Wood, flips against Trump in the Racketeering case in Georgia.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maga-lawyer-lin-wood-turns-142939667.html
Lin "The Light" Wood? What a joke!
I'm Gipper
The problem is the right to a speedy trial, which she would prefer to ignore but when the judge said you cannot, then she wanted to bring the rest of the defendants up to that trial date. Which is also a due process issue as to them.Quote:
Most generally, its economic for the prosecutors to the Court to witnesses to keep it all together and present the same case once instead of multiple times. Indeed, Courts have been provided the power to and more than infrequently join criminal cases together for economic reasons.
A set of circumstances any competent prosecutor could have anticipated. Do you really think the witnesses against Powell and Chesebro will be the exact same as against the 17 other defendants?
"Economic reasons" is what the left has issued as a talking point supporting Fani in her "try em all together" nonsense. Even that fails to make sense.aggiehawg said:The problem is the right to a speedy trial, which she would prefer to ignore but when the judge said you cannot, then she wanted to bring the rest of the defendants up to that trial date. Which is also a due process issue as to them.Quote:
Most generally, its economic for the prosecutors to the Court to witnesses to keep it all together and present the same case once instead of multiple times. Indeed, Courts have been provided the power to and more than infrequently join criminal cases together for economic reasons.
A set of circumstances any competent prosecutor could have anticipated. Do you really think the witnesses against Powell and Chesebro will be the exact same as against the 17 other defendants?
No other reason makes sense. Not from witnesses, not to right to fair trial, not from a jury perspective, not from a time perspective, not from an economic perspective. There is literally not one sensible reason for her approach to try them all together tomorrow cause I only waited 2.5 years to put together that bull**** indictment.
A defendant brought a discretionary motion for removal that he's so far lost on and so she must not have thought through what she was doing? OK.aggiehawg said: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."Willis should shut this down despite it maybe giving Meadows a defeat. First, it is a nasty kind of textualism that conservatives like and liberals should reject. Second, it introduces more unnecessary confusion and opens the door to a greater likelihood of Supreme Court review.
— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) September 12, 2023
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.
I agree with Kreis. Willis didn't argue about current/former status at trial court nor did the trial judge discuss that issue. The Circuit Court somewhat oddly identified that question and asked for briefing itself and if they use that as a reason to deny Meadows' removal, it just opens up an additional and probably unnecessary question for appeal. Willis should stick to the argument she won with at the trial level.
To the extent she addresses the issue, she should make it brief and call it just that...an issue the appellate court need not decide.
Interpreting the federal removal statute is an unnecessary question in this setting?Quote:
it just opens up an additional and probably unnecessary question for appeal. Willis should stick to the argument she won with at the trial level.
To the extent she addresses the issue, she should make it brief and call it just that...an issue the appellate court need not decide.
Interpreting that particular prong of the federal removal statute is arguably unnecessary in this setting. The State won at the trial level even though the trial court assumed Meadows met that prong.aggiehawg said:Interpreting the federal removal statute is an unnecessary question in this setting?Quote:
it just opens up an additional and probably unnecessary question for appeal. Willis should stick to the argument she won with at the trial level.
To the extent she addresses the issue, she should make it brief and call it just that...an issue the appellate court need not decide.
There are two questions of immunity. One would be his defense in federal court after removal.
As to the state court, the immunity question stems from the federal removal statute stopping state prosecutors from filing against federal employees and officers within the context of their duties.
As to the state court, the immunity question stems from the federal removal statute stopping state prosecutors from filing against federal employees and officers within the context of their duties.
The removal statute doesn't prevent state prosecutors from filing against federal employees and officers for acts within the context of their duties.aggiehawg said:
There are two questions of immunity. One would be his defense in federal court after removal.
As to the state court, the immunity question stems from the federal removal statute stopping state prosecutors from filing against federal employees and officers within the context of their duties.
Immunity from prosecution is an entirely separate issue, although it deals with similar concepts (including the scope of the official's duties.)
Hours after the publication of our story this morning, attorney Lin Wood confirmed he will be a state’s witness after receiving a subpoena to testify in Sidney Powell’s case — but he denies that means he “flipped” on Trump.
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) September 20, 2023
Per his Telegram account https://t.co/pNem5MgdWV pic.twitter.com/ULxOhvIHzq
Perhaps immunity was an inaccurrate term. Point being the removal statute, if it applies, does not allow for prosecutions to proceed in state court.Quote:
The removal statute doesn't prevent state prosecutors from filing against federal employees and officers for acts within the context of their duties.
Immunity from prosecution is an entirely separate issue, although it deals with similar concepts (including the scope of the official's duties.)
Better?
Same for the Mar-a-LAgo guys. As suspected, they leak this stuff to give the talking point someone has flipped so libs can all pump up their strap-ons at the same time and make hand-whipped soy lattes. Its disgusting and in theory should be against the law.
aggiehawg said:Perhaps immunity was an inaccurrate term. Point being the removal statute, if it applies, does not allow for prosecutions to proceed in state court.Quote:
The removal statute doesn't prevent state prosecutors from filing against federal employees and officers for acts within the context of their duties.
Immunity from prosecution is an entirely separate issue, although it deals with similar concepts (including the scope of the official's duties.)
Better?
If it is invoked by the defendant, yes, that's right.
The point being discussed by Kreis is that the 11th Circuit in its order questioned whether the removal statute applies to Meadows at all. They asked for briefing on whether a former official can use the removal statute or if you have to be a current official.
Kreis believes, and I agree, that from Willis' side, Willis shouldn't bite on that issue because she won at the trial level even though the trial judge essentially assumed it does apply to former officials. I agree with Kreis that Willis' best path is to argue that the 11th Circuit shouldn't decide that question about former/current officials because Meadows doesn't meet another prong, therefore it does not matter whether or not the statute applies to former officials.
I believe that because that just opens up another appealable issue that Meadows would probably win on. So, from a strategy standpoint, Willis should let Meadows "win" on that issue and argue what she won with at the trial level…that he acted outside his official federal capacity.
Meadows also doesn't want to go down that path other than it's potential to cause delay, as he obviously needs the statute to apply to former officials.
Lin Woods is so nuts, the prosecution's game plan is probably just put him on the stand, wind him up and let him go.
It would make no sense if the removal statute does not apply to former federal Executive Branch advisors and Chiefs of Staff. Defeats the whole purpose, wouldn't it? No one would take those jobs and risk BS state charges later.Quote:
I agree with Kreis that Willis' best path is to argue that the 11th Circuit shouldn't decide that question about former/current officials because Meadows doesn't meet another prong, therefore it does not matter whether or not the statute applies to former officials.
I believe that because that just opens up another appealable issue that Meadows would probably win on.
GeorgiAg said:
Lin Woods is so nuts, the prosecution's game plan is probably just put him on the stand, wind him up and let him go.
The A Few Good Men approach isn't a bad approach sometimes
Agree with you there, it would not make any sense for the state to be able to wait until the Fed left office to prosecute!
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
Gotta subpoena every witness you might possibly call, whether for direct or cross. That way, even if the witness gets sick, goes to the hospital, has a car wreck on the way to court, leaves the country etc..., you get a continuance and not told "too bad he's not available, call your next witness - no more witnesses? too bad, counselor" by the Court.aggiehawg said:With a very important witness, a prosecutor will take no chances they agree but then don't show up. They almost always have a subpoena ready for them.fka ftc said:Or not subpoena him, which may very well be there intent. The things, the injustices being done in these cases for nothing more than shaping public opinion regarding an opposing candidate for POTUS is absolutely disgusting and un-American.aggiehawg said:This doesn't automatically mean what people are implying. Lin Wood is a resident in Georgia and subject to a state court subpoena. His being on a witness list could simply mean they will subpoena him when the time comes.Quote:
Wood is a witness for the prosecution.
aggiehawg said:It would make no sense if the removal statute does not apply to former federal Executive Branch advisors and Chiefs of Staff. Defeats the whole purpose, wouldn't it? No one would take those jobs and risk BS state charges later.Quote:
I agree with Kreis that Willis' best path is to argue that the 11th Circuit shouldn't decide that question about former/current officials because Meadows doesn't meet another prong, therefore it does not matter whether or not the statute applies to former officials.
I believe that because that just opens up another appealable issue that Meadows would probably win on.
I think it should apply to former officials but from a pure textualist approach, there's a strong argument it doesn't apply.
I'm of the opinion the 11th Circuit doesn't need to answer an issue neither side was fighting about and should affirm that Meadows was acting outside his official duty.
But I also think this removal business has taken on oversized importance and ultimately doesn't matter a whole lot either way. I believe the outcome of the trial will be the same either way.
We will have to agree to disagree on that one.Quote:
I'm of the opinion the 11th Circuit doesn't need to answer an issue neither side was fighting about and should affirm that Meadows was acting outside his official duty.
aggiehawg said:We will have to agree to disagree on that one.Quote:
I'm of the opinion the 11th Circuit doesn't need to answer an issue neither side was fighting about and should affirm that Meadows was acting outside his official duty.
Donald Trump is not going to try to remove his case to federal court. His case will go forward in state court.
NEW: Donald Trump advising the Fulton County court that he will NOT be removing his case to federal court. pic.twitter.com/wr4VfW1Jcm
— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) September 28, 2023
And Rudy Guiliani's local counsel wants to withdraw as his attorney. Hopefully Rudy's been keeping up with paying the bills.
NEW: One of Rudy Giuliani’s lawyers, L. David Wolfe, files a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Wolfe is one of Giuliani’s local counsel in Georgia. pic.twitter.com/jSZ6YXyUGx
— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) September 28, 2023
Featured Stories
See All
LIVE from Reed Arena: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. Abilene Christian
by Richard Zane
A&M's season ends with microcosmic second-half collapse in Las Vegas
by Olin Buchanan
Learned, Loved, Loathed: USC 35, Texas A&M 31 (2024 Las Vegas Bowl)
by Olin Buchanan
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Battle At Reed' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United