Convicted felon Donald Trump on Trial (Found guilty on 34 felony counts. 54 criminal count still in the air)

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Fergasun]

What a glorious opinion from the judge.  Pretty much what I expected to see.  

 

More delicious, it happened to Mark "The Hatch Act doesn't matter" Meadows.  Guess what buddy - there are still judges willing to "uphold the rule of law".  

 

What the heck is going on with the Florida documents case though? 

[China]

18 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 

What the heck is going on with the Florida documents case though? 

 

Judge Cannon is a cluster****.  Jack Smith and her are going back and forth about a Garcia hearing for Trump's co-conspirators.  Essentially, the co-conspirators are represented by Trump's PAC lawyers and there is a confict of interest, and Judge Cannon has to have it explained to her.

 

Here's a summary

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Cannon's case is so over her head. The 11th Circuit needs to pull her off this case because she doesn't know the law. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by LadySkinsFan

[Fergasun]

@China

@LadySkinsFan

I wad reading up on what's going on.  Can't tell if she's acting like she wants to get removed, or is so unfamiliar with the law that it's imcompetncy.  But, I guess when Alito and Thomas signal that nake federal level political hackery are okay... you get district kisges who follow.

 

 

[China]

The juror who backed Trump and other Georgia grand jury takeaways

 

A newly released report shows that the grand jury which investigated alleged election interference in Georgia voted to recommend criminal charges against a total of 39 people.

 

The votes were not binding, however, and only 19 people were eventually charged. Here are three key takeaways from the report.

 

1. It was a close call for three senators
 

The recommendations to indict were close votes. That may have factored into a decision by the Atlanta district attorney not to move forward with charges against the senators.

 

The senators were not the only ones with close ties to Mr Trump who received indictment recommendations but were not ultimately charged. Others included former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, lawyer Lin Wood and political strategist Boris Epshteyn.

 

2. There was a lone holdout against Trump indictment
 

Each time the Atlanta grand jury investigating the alleged conspiracy voted to decide whether to recommend indicting former President Donald Trump, one person said no.

 

In votes on the legality of Mr Trump's phone call pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, on his contacts with other Georgia officials and on his national efforts to overturn the presidential election, there was always a lone holdout - and, in some instances, several abstentions.

 

That made little difference in the outcome of the grand jury deliberations, where not every juror needs to agree to recommend an indictment. In a criminal trial, however, the jury will have to be unanimous to get a guilty verdict.

 

A holdout in that case could ultimately lead to a hung jury and a mistrial.

 

3. Some 'fake electors' escaped charges
 

In Georgia, however, there were a handful of individuals whom the grand jury did not recommend indicting.

 

While votes against former Mr Trump and his closest advisers were near unanimous, the grand jury was less interested in charging individuals - some of them private citizens - who agreed to list their names on documents that claimed that Mr Trump, not Joe Biden, won a plurality of the vote in Georgia.

 

Three of these 16 "electors" who met in Atlanta on 14 December, 2020, and attested to a Trump victory were not named in the investigation and may have co-operated with the prosecution.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Fan since a Fetus]

[mistertim]

18 hours ago, China said:

2. There was a lone holdout against Trump indictment
 

Each time the Atlanta grand jury investigating the alleged conspiracy voted to decide whether to recommend indicting former President Donald Trump, one person said no.

 

In votes on the legality of Mr Trump's phone call pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, on his contacts with other Georgia officials and on his national efforts to overturn the presidential election, there was always a lone holdout - and, in some instances, several abstentions.

 

That made little difference in the outcome of the grand jury deliberations, where not every juror needs to agree to recommend an indictment. In a criminal trial, however, the jury will have to be unanimous to get a guilty verdict.

 

A holdout in that case could ultimately lead to a hung jury and a mistrial.

 

 

This is my concern about Trump's criminal trial. If there's even one MAGA on the jury, they probably will refuse to vote to convict, no matter how damning and comprehensive the evidence.

Edited September 10, 2023 by mistertim

[Metalhead]

6 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

This is my concern about Trump's criminal trial. If there's even one MAGA on the jury, they probably will refuse to vote to convict, no matter how damning and comprehensive the evidence.

That's exactly what happened in the Manafort trial. One juror gave an interview afterward discussing the ordeal they had with a MAGA in their jury. The person refused to convict on overwhelming evidence and was ridiculosly obstinate, making excuses and such. They also said Manafort would have been guilty on all charges if it wasn't for that single Maga mucking up the process.

[mistertim]

10 minutes ago, Metalhead said:

That's exactly what happened in the Manafort trial. One juror gave an interview afterward discussing the ordeal they had with a MAGA in their jury. The person refused to convict on overwhelming evidence and was ridiculosly obstinate, making excuses and such. They also said Manafort would have been guilty on all charges if it wasn't for that single Maga mucking up the process.

 

Yep, and that was only a Trump associate. How much more obstinate would a MAGA juror be for Trump himself? If there's a single full-on MAGA on the jury, Trump will skate. They wouldn't vote to convict him no matter the evidence. That would basically be like a member of a fanatical religious cult voting to convict their religious leader. Not gonna happen.

[China]

One thing to consider, there is no voir dire for grand juries so having a holdout MAGA is not a surprise. There is for a regular jury.  That gives the prosecution a better chance of eliminating a MAGA juror.

Edited September 10, 2023 by China

[mistertim]

7 hours ago, China said:

One thing to consider, there is no voir dire for grand juries so having a holdout MAGA is not a surprise. There is for a regular jury.  That gives the prosecution a better chance of eliminating a MAGA juror.

 

But what would stop a MAGA from just lying during the interview questioning process and saying they aren't a MAGA and don't have a political affiliation? Are the prosecution and defense allowed to actually do further separate background checks to see if the potential jurors were telling the truth?

[GhostofSparta]

44 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

But what would stop a MAGA from just lying during the interview questioning process and saying they aren't a MAGA and don't have a political affiliation?

The hat, shirt, tattoos, and inability to keep their mouth shut about anything Trump should help the screening process.

[China]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

But what would stop a MAGA from just lying during the interview questioning process and saying they aren't a MAGA and don't have a political affiliation? Are the prosecution and defense allowed to actually do further separate background checks to see if the potential jurors were telling the truth?

 

I don't think they tell you what trial you're going to be sitting on before they voir dire you, so they may not know what trial they'd be getting on.  Also, if one did manage to slip through and vote against convicting Trump, that doesn't mean he'd get off.  It would mean a hung jury and they'd do the whole thing over again.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[skinsmarydu]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

But what would stop a MAGA from just lying during the interview questioning process and saying they aren't a MAGA and don't have a political affiliation? Are the prosecution and defense allowed to actually do further separate background checks to see if the potential jurors were telling the truth?

 

1 hour ago, China said:

 

I don't think they tell you what trial you're going to be sitting on before they voir dire you, so they may not know what trial they'd be getting on.  Also, if one did manage to slip through and vote against convicting Trump, that doesn't mean he'd get off.  It would mean a hung jury and they'd do the whole thing over again.

I believe both of these statements are true. 

I watch a lot of true crime stuff and some voir dire can get wretched.  (for some certain things, I couldn't be considered for a jury on any level...rape, burglary, robbery, home invasion, gun violence involving suicide).  I'm probably crossed off every list in Georgia.   This place is Gotham.  Even tho I might be lenient to the defense if I heard the evidence with credible testimony, they know better than to even call me. 

The Young Thug (or whoever he is) has had voir dire for almost 8 months here in Ms. Willis' jurisdiction.  I'm sure at least one or two of the things I mentioned are why his jury selection is taking a long time.

The Fool's will be much worse. 

[China]

Apparently Trump has filed a motion to have Judge Chutkan recuse herself.  More on that:

 

 

[Fergasun]

Pretty sure it's just like DoJ asking Cannon to recuse.  Very high bar.  I am fairly certain Trump has been mentioned in every single Jan 6 trial. 

 

But I look forward to some hack like JTurdley writing an article that acts like, "Trump is correct, Judge Chutkan should recuse" and feedong it to the GOP Trumpers.  I am sick of reading that guys articles... especially his one on "Georgia went too far in going after Meadows...".  Nope pal!!!! You are wrong!

[Cooked Crack]

 

[PokerPacker]

30 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

[China]

Trump Moves to Quash Most Charges Against Him in Georgia

 

Former President Donald J. Trump asked a judge on Monday to throw out most of the 13 charges against him in the wide-ranging election interference indictment handed up by a grand jury last month in Georgia.

 

A flurry of one-page motions from Mr. Trump’s Georgia lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, piggyback off more expansive recent motions by some of the other 18 defendants in the case, including one filed on behalf of the lawyer Ray Smith III. That motion gives a detailed critique of the 98-page indictment, arguing that its “defects” are “voluminous,” and that it is legally unsound.

 

Among other things, Mr. Smith’s motion says that the charge of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO — which all 19 defendants face — seeks to “punish protected First Amendment activity” and fails to “sufficiently allege the existence” of a racketeering enterprise whose goal was to overturn Mr. Trump’s narrow 2020 election loss in the state.

 

Mr. Trump’s legal filings also adopt motions similar to several filed by two other co-defendants, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Kenneth Chesebro. Like Mr. Smith, both men are lawyers associated with Mr. Trump, accused of taking part in the election interference scheme.

 

The Smith filing argues that the racketeering conspiracy laid out by the prosecution was actually “comprised of millions of people throughout the country” who believed election fraud had taken place and were working toward the same goal as the defendants.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Fergasun]

The judge basically said, "You lost... you probably will keep losing in Federal Court... there is a public interest in Federal Courts not interfering with state courts.... have a good day sir!"

[Fergasun]

3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

The judge basically said, "You lost... you probably will keep losing in Federal Court... there is a public interest in Federal Courts not interfering with state courts.... have a good day sir!"

To be fair to Meadows and all these people, everyone with money will appeal and throw all they can at their legal cases.  So I know some commentators are ridiculing or thinking the arguments are crazy.  You gotta try, right?  

 

Until people start saying, "Maybe I will just take a deal and get on with life".

[China]

Trump’s access to classified information restricted as he heads to trial in documents case, federal judge rules

 

Former President Donald Trump will be restricted on how and when he can look at, and talk about, classified information, a judge decided Wednesday after a sealed hearing the day before.

 

The decision appears to largely be in line with restrictions special counsel Jack Smith sought to protect classified information that may be evidence in the case against Trump, which accuses him of criminally mishandling sensitive national security secrets at his Florida club and residence after he left office.

 

The development is one of the first times the court has set terms around classified information in a case where Trump’s team has tried to downplay the seriousness of how records were handled. Trump’s legal team had wanted more leeway on the locations where they could discuss classified records with him, including at the Mar-a-Lago club and his Bedminster, New Jersey, residence.

 

Judge Aileen Cannon warned in her order of the consequences should any classified or otherwise sensitive information be improperly revealed to the public, pointing out such disclosures may violate the law.

 

Click on the link for the full article