Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | SCOTUS declines to lift gag order

[wmheel1287]

The 97% was obviously a bit of an exaggeration to make a larger point.
Hard core liberals in Manhattan are not going to like the Republican nominee for President whether it’s Romney or Trump.
Finally, Trump improved his numbers in NYC, NY and especially NJ from 2106 and 2020.

Well, when was the trial? Those improved numbers should indicate that the jury pool was a lot more fair to defendant Trump than you indicated, no?

 

[Ramrouser]

you wrote "Ok, she prevailed with a jury pool of 97% Dems. This civil case is not the heart of lawfare."

so i think we can infer that you think the civil case was part of lawfare, if not its heart. and the jury pool comment was obviously a way to cast doubt on on the fairness of the trial.

if you are retreating from that position, and now merely noting that it is harder to win a case in a jurisdiction where you are hated than where you are liked, fine. you are right that adam schiff would prefer CA as a venue to ID. but thats not what you said nor what you have been saying.

The civil case was broadly part of lawfare since it was hatched at a gathering at Molly Jong Fast’s Manhattan apartment by George Conway and other Never Trumpers and funded by liberal Dem donors. Carroll was the conduit of these individuals to “get Trump” for an alleged act from the 1990s which resembled a “Law and Order” episode (her favorite show}. So I’m not retreating. The narrow issue of the fairness of the civil trial is a separate issue.

The jury verdict was fair to the extent civil process was followed: it was just a tough venue for Trump.

 

[Ramrouser]

Well, when was the trial? Those improved numbers should indicate that the jury pool was a lot more fair to defendant Trump than you indicated, no?

While there was an almost 600k swing in votes in nyc from 2020, most of the improvement came from the other NYC boroughs, NOT Manhattan.

 

[Calheel]

While there was an almost 600k swing in votes in nyc from 2020, most of the improvement came from the other NYC boroughs, NOT Manhattan.

The defamation case was in SDNY, not state court, and the SDNY pulls jurors from the following counties: New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess and Sullivan.

 

[Ramrouser]

The defamation case was in SDNY, not state court, and the SDNY pulls jurors from the following counties: New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess and Sullivan.

You’re right. That case was in federal court. My mistake.

 

[Ramrouser]

so if it was a local election, the DA should prosecute? could you explain the difference between the situations when it comes to the penal interests of the state of georgia? georgia has an interest in prosecuting election fraud that takes place within its borders. why does it matter what election?

in addition, the rico case was not about the election per se, as much as it was about georgia's electors. surely georgia has as much interest as any body in protecting the integrity of its elector appointments, so that the candidate who actually wins the states gets the votes.

finally, elections are conducted at the state and local level. there is no federal election process. the state courts have by far more experience with georgia elections than the federal court. if any precedent needs to be set, it should be decided by the state courts, rather than create another species of the federal law of state statutes under erie.

doj usually gets involved in elections only when federal law is implicated -- i.e. violations of the voting rights act or due process or one-person, one-vote. otherwise, it is left to the states. if trump had merely contented himself with the raffensberger phone call, i doubt doj would have gotten involved. j6 and the elector scheme, of course, forced doj to be involved (which is yet another reason the "did fani confer with feds" nonsense is just that).

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.

 

[superrific]

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.

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?

 

[Ramrouser]

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.

 

[wmheel1287]

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.

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.

 

[superrific]

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.

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.