Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | GA Supremes DQ Willis

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 623
  • Views: 27K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
These state issues you raise should be handled by the State's Attorney General's office and NOT a local County DA. The only reason the call came into the County was because the State's SOS's office is in downtown Atlanta. It makes no sense for one county (out of 159) to pursue alleged state interests in a state wide election.

This directly impacts me as I am an Atlanta/FC resident. Fani's decision to pursue a cumbersome 18 defendant (including ex POTUS) RICO action sapped manpower away from her office to try other criminal cases and causes numerous defendants to languish in jail awaiting trial. It also placed a tremendous financial burden on the County - especially in light of her payments to her lover boy. There simply has to be a cost/benefit analysis in making a decision to file the RICO action.

What the evidence is showing, and will show, is that Jack Smith et al knew the State's Attorney General would not pursue these claims so they enlisted the DA in deep blue Atlanta to file the action as part of their lawfare against Trump. I bet the investigations are going to reveal extensive coordination and collaboration between her office and Jack Smith's group. There's a reason they are all "lawyering up" in DC as we speak.
Click to expand...
so first, you said the county da should defer to the feds because it was a federal election. you have now completely abandoned that argument, going instead with "county DA should defer to state AG." i don't have much to say about that as i am not a georgia resident and i do not know georgia state law. it seems to me that if the legislature has empowered the DAs to prosecute state offenses, then the action was proper.

now, is it your position that county DAs should only prosecute cases where the harm is localized within the county? and if there's a criminal scheme that affects many other counties as well, it has to be prosecuted by the state or not at all? if there's a conspiracy in which government officials in twelve counties were embezzling money and covering for each other, and the state AG declines to prosecute, can a county step in to prosecute the whole conspiracy? if yes, please distinguish that situation from the trump rico case.

i predict that there will be no evidence that jack smith "enlisted" the DA or prodded anyone to file charges as part of their investigation. would you care to make a wager? also, could you please explain the potentially illegal conduct of "they" in DC that has "them" lawyering up? can you please point to a source of federal law, whether statutory, constitutional or regulatory, that would make any of the behavior of any of "them" illegal?
 
My position is that:

1. If there was federal election interference or illegality, the DOJ should file the charges;
2. There may be state interests as well (as you indicated) and if the state feels it needs to protect its interests and file charges against the wrongdoers then the State's Attorney General should initiate these charges, not a County DA's office.

In response to your hypothetical, of course a county DA can pursue charges for a regional conspiracy and is not limited to the crimes localized within the county. Now, if that conspiracy encompassed all 159 Georgia Counties then maybe just maybe the State Attorney General's office is in a better position to prosecute (like the Trump case) than a single County DA.

I believe you'll need to conduct an appropriate investigation before you can start identifying specific statutes Smith's team/Fani violated. I would start with a criminal conspiracy to violate Trump's constitutional rights by weaponizing the judicial system against him. I would defer to Mike Davis of the Article III Project on this issue.
 
Ramrouser said:
My position is that:

1. If there was federal election interference or illegality, the DOJ should file the charges;
2. There may be state interests as well (as you indicated) and if the state feels it needs to protect its interests and file charges against the wrongdoers then the State's Attorney General should initiate these charges, not a County DA's office.

In response to your hypothetical, of course a county DA can pursue charges for a regional conspiracy and is not limited to the crimes localized within the county. Now, if that conspiracy encompassed all 159 Georgia Counties then maybe just maybe the State Attorney General's office is in a better position to prosecute (like the Trump case) than a single County DA.

I believe you'll need to conduct an appropriate investigation before you can start identifying specific statutes Smith's team/Fani violated. I would start with a criminal conspiracy to violate Trump's constitutional rights by weaponizing the judicial system against him. I would defer to Mike Davis of the Article III Project on this issue.
Click to expand...
Do you recognize that state AG offices are often as politicized as a county DA might be? Doesnt that give some pause to your supposition that county DA's should stay out?

Heck, in NC, we practically have a shadow Attorney General office because the legislature appoints it's own counsel in direct opposition to the state AG. Many DA offices in conservative counties take positions directly in opposition to the state AG.
 
Ramrouser said:
My position is that:

1. If there was federal election interference or illegality, the DOJ should file the charges;
2. There may be state interests as well (as you indicated) and if the state feels it needs to protect its interests and file charges against the wrongdoers then the State's Attorney General should initiate these charges, not a County DA's office.

In response to your hypothetical, of course a county DA can pursue charges for a regional conspiracy and is not limited to the crimes localized within the county. Now, if that conspiracy encompassed all 159 Georgia Counties then maybe just maybe the State Attorney General's office is in a better position to prosecute (like the Trump case) than a single County DA.

I believe you'll need to conduct an appropriate investigation before you can start identifying specific statutes Smith's team/Fani violated. I would start with a criminal conspiracy to violate Trump's constitutional rights by weaponizing the judicial system against him. I would defer to Mike Davis of the Article III Project on this issue.
Click to expand...
1. ok, there "may be" state interests is not really accurate. there definitely are state interests. all 50 states have criminalized this sort of election related fraud.

2. could you please explain the principle by which you conclude that doj should have exclusive jurisdiction over "federal election interference"? note that your buddy ray was not charged with "election interference." he was part of a conspiracy to replace the lawful electors with unlawful ones. it is unclear to me why that should be charged federally only. could you justify your position rather than merely assert it?

3. deferring to mike davis? LOL. anyway, before you can start thinking about investigating, you need a basis for the investigation. what crimes do you think jack smith or his staff might have committed.

when you write things like "criminal conspiracy to violate trump's constitutional rights by weaponizing the judicial system against him," it undermines your claim to be an actual attorney. attorneys do not write things like that, because attorneys know:

a. "weaponizing the justice system" is mere rhetoric that has no basis in any statute or statutory scheme;
b. merely saying that it is a criminal conspiracy doesn't make it so, given the requirement of illegality
c. even if "weaponizing the justice system" were a thing, there is no constitutional right to be free of it, whatever "it" is. are rights against certain types of weapons, such as illegal searches or seizures. there is an affirmative defense of selective prosecution, with elements not remotely satisfied in any trump case. if a prosecutor follows all applicable laws and procedures perfectly, and then admits that s/he went extra hard at a defendant out of personal dislike, there is no constitutional violation. at most the indictment would be quashed.
d. judicial actors often conspire to deprive people of constitutional rights. see, e.g. the brady violation case out of new orleans. there was a case in the second circuit recently, i think, where suffolk county prosecutors targeted a group of nurses (but their lawsuit was dismissed). could you cite any example of where someone went to jail for that? i am not aware of it.
e. prosecutors have absolute immunity from prosecution for their prosecuting decisions. so you can't go after fani for criminal charges. i don't think there have ever been any cases addressing whether special counsels have similar immunity, but theres not reason why the judge-made law of absolute immunity wouldn't apply. in fact, it should apply even more strongly in the special counsel context, given the potential for exactly the type of abuse you are advocating here.

4. investigating the investigators is a hallmark of totalitarian and authoritarian systems of government. there's a reason why it has never been an issue in the entire history of the country until trump showed up.
 

Judge sets Trump’s sentencing in hush money case for Jan. 10, but signals no jail time​


apnews.com

Judge sets Trump's sentencing in hush money case for Jan. 10, but signals no jail time

In an extraordinary turn, a judge has set President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush money case for Jan. 10 — little over a week before he’s due to return to the White House.
apnews.com apnews.com

“ In an extraordinary turn, a judge Friday set President-elect Donald Trump’ssentencing in his hush money criminal case for Jan. 10 — little over a week before he’s due to return to the White House — but indicated he wouldn’t be jailed.

…
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, signaled in a written decision that he’d sentence the former and future president to what’s known as an unconditional discharge, in which a conviction stands but the case is closed without jail time, a fine or probation. Trump can appear virtually for sentencing, if he chooses.

Rejecting Trump’s push to dismiss the verdict and throw out the case on presidential immunity grounds and because of his impending second term, Merchan wrote that only “bringing finality to this matter” would serve the interests of justice.

… He said he sought to balance Trump’s ability to govern, “unencumbered” by the case, against other interests: the U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity and the public’s expectation “that all are equal and no one is above the law,” and the importance of respecting a jury verdict.

“This court is simply not persuaded that the first factor outweighs the others at this stage of the proceeding,” Merchan wrote in an 18-page decision. …”
 
“… Merchan, indicated that he favored a so-called unconditional discharge of Mr. Trump’s sentence, a rare and lenient alternative to jail or probation. He set a sentencing date of Jan. 10, and ordered Mr. Trump to appear either in person or virtually.

An unconditional discharge would cement Mr. Trump’s status as a felon just weeks before his inauguration — he would be the first to carry that dubious designation into the presidency — even as it would water down the consequences for his crimes.

That sentence, Justice Merchan wrote in an 18-page decision, “appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow defendant to pursue his appellate options.” …”

www.nytimes.com

Judge Upholds Trump’s Sentencing in Hush Money Case but Signals No Jail Time

The New York judge who oversaw President-elect Donald J. Trump’s hush-money trial scheduled his sentencing for Jan. 10. Mr. Trump is expected to appeal his conviction.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Decision: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Clayton Decision.pdf
 
“… A New York Times review of the 30 felony false-records convictions in Manhattan since 2014 revealed that no other defendant received an unconditional discharge. They instead received jail and prison sentences, probation, conditional discharges, community service or fines.

The lenient sentence for Mr. Trump would reflect the practical impossibility of jailing a president-elect or sitting president — or even holding the threat of jail over his head during his term.

It would also cap a stunning turnabout for Mr. Trump, who last year faced four criminal cases in four different jurisdictions, each carrying the threat of years in prison. Now, he is poised to avoid spending even a day behind bars, thanks to an election that returned him to the White House.

The federal special counsel who brought two of those cases, one in Washington, D.C., and the other in Florida, recently shut them down, yielding to a Justice Department policy prohibiting federal prosecutions of sitting presidents. …”

www.nytimes.com

Judge Upholds Trump’s Sentencing in Hush Money Case but Signals No Jail Time

The New York judge who oversaw President-elect Donald J. Trump’s hush-money trial scheduled his sentencing for Jan. 10. Mr. Trump is expected to appeal his conviction.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
(Continued)

“… But unlike Mr. Smith, whose federal cases were mired in delays, the Manhattan prosecutors had already secured a conviction. And even Mr. Smith dropped the cases “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that the charges might return after Mr. Trump leaves office.

It is also unclear whether the federal policy against prosecuting sitting presidents applies to local prosecutors in the district attorney’s office — or to a defendant like Mr. Trump who was not a sitting president when convicted.

In detailing the policy against prosecuting sitting presidents decades ago, the Justice Department described it as “a temporary immunity,” suggesting it did not apply before or after a president’s term in office.

“Binding precedent does not provide that an individual, upon becoming president, can retroactively dismiss or vacate prior criminal acts nor does it grant blanket presidential-elect immunity,” Justice Merchan wrote on Friday.

… Although the New York case centered on a personal and political scandal that predated Mr. Trump’s presidency, the high court decision prohibited prosecutors from introducing evidence about a president’s official acts even in a case about private misconduct.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued that trial testimony from former White House employees had crossed the line into official acts and contaminated the verdict.

But Justice Merchan concluded that the testimony had centered on Mr. Trump’s unofficial conduct. And even if the evidence was “admitted in error, such error was harmless,” he wrote, noting the “overwhelming evidence of guilt” introduced at trial. …”
 
I assume Trump will appeal the verdict, but does he have an avenue to delay the sentencing ?

If he is sentenced next week, he will enter office as the first convicted and sentenced felon to occupy the White House, and history will record that half the country had no problem electing a president who was a convicted and sentenced felon.
 
heelinhell said:
I assume Trump will appeal the verdict, but does he have an avenue to delay the sentencing ?

If he is sentenced next week, he will enter office as the first convicted and sentenced felon to occupy the White House, and history will record that half the country had no problem electing a president who was a convicted and sentenced felon.
Click to expand...
He’s a convicted felon regardless of whether he’s sentenced. That says plenty to me.
 
Why don't more people sue Trump for defamation? Merchan could, and he would win, because calling someone corrupt and crooked is, IIRC, defamation per se.

From what I've seen, suing Trump and his coterie seems to be a fairly easy way to make a lot of $$.
 
superrific said:
Why don't more people sue Trump for defamation? Merchan could, and he would win, because calling someone corrupt and crooked is, IIRC, defamation per se.

From what I've seen, suing Trump and his coterie seems to be a fairly easy way to make a lot of $$.
Click to expand...
Fairly easy way to get judgments for a lot of money, but how much has really been collected? And not just from Trump. Rudy continues to dodge paying what he owes and for the most part succeeding. Running out the clock until his liver fails.
 
nycfan said:
Fairly easy way to get judgments for a lot of money, but how much has really been collected? And not just from Trump. Rudy continues to dodge paying what he owes and for the most part succeeding. Running out the clock until his liver fails.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a problem for Ruby Freeman's lawyers (I don't remember the other woman's name). I'm confident they will collect. It will be easier when Rudy kicks the bucket.

Trump will eventually have to pay up.
 




“… In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garlandsent Monday, Trump’s lawyers said they were allowed to review Smith’s report in the criminal case in which Trump was charged with conspiring to keep classified documents after he left office.

They threatened legal action if it is released, noting Smith’s findings include strongly worded allegations that Trump “engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort” and describe him as “the head of the criminal conspiracies.”

Trump’s lawyers argued Smith’s report amounts to little more than a “politically-motivated attack” and that making public his findings in the classified documents case or an election interference case Smith also pursue would illegally interfere with Trump’s presidential transition.

… To that end, they said Smith’s findings contain “baseless attacks on other anticipated members of President Trump’s incoming administration, which are an obvious effort to interfere with upcoming confirmation hearings.” …”
 

Trump seeks to stop Smith releasing final report​


“… Smith responded in a court filingTuesday that it will be up to Garland to decide whether any part of the report will be released to the public.

  • While Garland has not yet reached a decision, if he does chose to release any part of the report pertaining to the classified documents case, he won't do so before Jan. 10, Smith wrote.
  • Smith added that he wouldn't submit his report to Garland until later Tuesday and would file a response to the defendants' motion Tuesday evening.
Driving the news: Both Trump's attorneys and lawyers for Nauta and De Oliveira wrote in the Monday letter that they reviewed a two-volume draft report in a conference room at Smith's office in Washington, D.C., from Friday to Monday. …”

IMG_4453.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top