Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | Smith Report on J6 Case Released

[nycfan]

 

[lawtig02]

Keep in mind that the charges against Lt. Gov Bert Jones have already been dismissed by the Prosecuting Attorney's Council of Georgia. Jones' case was assigned to the Counsel after the Fulton County judge determined that Fani's office had a conflict of interest with Jones. Instead of assigning the case against Jones to another DA, Executive Director Peter Skandalakis simply dismissed the charges against Jones last September. Jones was accused by Willis of being part of the so called "fake electors" scheme. He found Senator Jones' involvement and actions to be within the scope of his duties. "Therefore, this case does not warrant further investigation or further actions, and I consider the matter closed."

He could take similar actions against some or all of the remaining defendants.

Did Bert Jones meet with the fake electors and encourage them to sign fraudulent ballots certifying Trump as the winner of the 2020 election in Georgia, despite overwhelming evidence that he did not, in fact, win the state? Because if he didn't, his case has no relation to the case against Ray.

 

[superrific]

Did Bert Jones meet with the fake electors and encourage them to sign fraudulent ballots certifying Trump as the winner of the 2020 election in Georgia, despite overwhelming evidence that he did not, in fact, win the state? Because if he didn't, his case has no relation to the case against Ray.

Also, was Ray the LT Gov? "He found that Senator Jones' involvement and actions to be within the scope of his duties" is a sentence that does not apply to an atty in private practice.

 

[nycfan]

 

[Ramrouser]

Also, was Ray the LT Gov? "He found that Senator Jones' involvement and actions to be within the scope of his duties" is a sentence that does not apply to an atty in private practice.

Yes, but if the "fake electors" discussions and actions by the parties involved were so hare brained, crazy and fraudulent, it could not have been within the scope of the Lt Gov's duties. The Counsel determined, as a matter of law, that the Lt Gov's participation in voting as an alternate elector on Dec 14, 2020 was within the normal scope of his duties. That's got to have an impact on the other defendants who participated in this voting.

 

[finesse]

I'm not a lawyer but ,from the little I know, assuming logic follows law or vice versa doesn't ring true.

 

[superrific]

I didn't realize that the decision disqualifying Fani had absolutely no legal basis. I mean, I suspected it was bullshit, but the judges DID NOT EVEN TRY to articulate a rationale for their decision. This was the entirety of their legal analysis:

"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.4"

And the footnote only provides a half-hearted attempt to distinguish other on-point cases. But at no point does the opinion even offer an explanation of its assertion. It admits that the law is on Fani's side, but says this is a rare case that needs different treatment. Why? Nobody can tell.

I'm beginning to understand Ramrouser now. The quality of lawyering on display in this case -- the defendants, the advocates on both sides, the judges on this panel -- is horrifically poor. Some of the worst I've ever seen.

 

[lawtig02]

I'm not a lawyer but ,from the little I know, assuming logic follows law or vice versa doesn't ring true.

The lesson learned from this discussion is that human nature causes us to defend to the death, against all logic and morality, the person who signs our paychecks.

 

[lawtig02]

I didn't realize that the decision disqualifying Fani had absolutely no legal basis. I mean, I suspected it was bullshit, but the judges DID NOT EVEN TRY to articulate a rationale for their decision. This was the entirety of their legal analysis:

"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.4"

And the footnote only provides a half-hearted attempt to distinguish other on-point cases. But at no point does the opinion even offer an explanation of its assertion. It admits that the law is on Fani's side, but says this is a rare case that needs different treatment. Why? Nobody can tell.

I'm beginning to understand Ramrouser now. The quality of lawyering on display in this case -- the defendants, the advocates on both sides, the judges on this panel -- is horrifically poor. Some of the worst I've ever seen.

Yeah, that's Georgia. Sadly, NC is becoming the same with GOP dominance of SCONC.

 

[superrific]

Yes, but if the "fake electors" discussions and actions by the parties involved were so hare brained, crazy and fraudulent, it could not have been within the scope of the Lt Gov's duties. The Counsel determined, as a matter of law, that the Lt Gov's participation in voting as an alternate elector on Dec 14, 2020 was within the normal scope of his duties. That's got to have an impact on the other defendants who participated in this voting.

1. It's unclear how you don't know this, but Burt Jones was not the LT Governor at the time. He was a state senator.

2. According to this article from FOX, your characterization of these events is flagrantly dishonest. FOX is reporting that

Twenty-one months passed while he mulled a decision. Last year, in an interview with the FOX 5 I-Team, Skandalakis cited difficulty finding a prosecutor with enough resources to take on the case.

"Most of them – I know from my personal knowledge – that Pete has asked have refused," former Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter told the I-Team. "What I suspect has taken time is that Pete has been searching for someone to take the case, and nobody wants to touch this case. It’s radioactive to DAs, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans."

This article was from April 2024.

Lawsuit demands Skandalakis step down as special prosecutor of Lt. Gov. Jones

The appointment of a special prosecutor in the election interference case of Lt. Gov. Burt Jones is in dispute.

www.fox5atlanta.com

3. Also, I know that law is not your strong point, but The Counsel's determination -- which you have conveniently failed to provide -- has no legal significance whatsoever (except for Burt Jones), especially given the corrupt process by which it happened.

4. "Voting" is not a synonym for conspiracy. Try again.

 

[Ramrouser]

What the COA's was saying was that this case brought by Fani's office was the first of its kind, where a County DA's office brought criminal charges against an ex President of the United States (and President elect). If you're going to bring such an action, where the entire nation and world are watching, you better not engage in actions which have an appearance of impropriety since this will cause the nation and world to lose confidence in the American judicial system. In an "ordinary" case, this wouldn't be enough but this prosecution is unique.

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment and they exercised that right. Thank goodness.

 

[lawtig02]

What the COA's was saying was that this case brought by Fani's office was the first of its kind, where a County DA's office brought criminal charges against an ex President of the United States (and President elect). If you're going to bring such an action, where the entire nation and world are watching, you better not engage in actions which have an appearance of impropriety since this will cause the nation and world to lose confidence in the American judicial system. In an "ordinary" case, this wouldn't be enough but this prosecution is unique.

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment and they exercised that right. Thank goodness.

 

[superrific]

What the COA's was saying was that this case brought by Fani's office was the first of its kind, where a County DA's office brought criminal charges against an ex President of the United States (and President elect). If you're going to bring such an action, where the entire nation and world are watching, you better not engage in actions which have an appearance of impropriety since this will cause the nation and world to lose confidence in the American judicial system. In an "ordinary" case, this wouldn't be enough but this prosecution is unique.

Yeah, that's not a legal argument. That's just a word salad wrapping the core idea, which is "must help Dear Leader."

Note that "the first of its kind" actually cuts against your side. If this was the first of its kind, and you say that makes it different, then there was no concrete standard for Fani to follow. You idiots keep trumpeting this stupid line, "this type of prosecution has never happened before" as if it helps your side. The reason, of course, that there have not been these types of cases before is that our presidents have not been criminals. With the exception of Nixon.

See if you can answer this question: was it illegal for Trump to ask Raffensberger to find him votes, and if so, would it justify prosecution? Please show your work.

 

[Healing]

ttump tries, in a concerted and conspiratorial manner, to overturn an election (which he lost by many millions of votes) and the embarrassment to the US legal system is apparently the legal sex life of the prosecutor.

 

[lawtig02]

Yeah, that's not a legal argument. That's just a word salad wrapping the core idea, which is "must help Dear Leader."

Note that "the first of its kind" actually cuts against your side. If this was the first of its kind, and you say that makes it different, then there was no concrete standard for Fani to follow. You idiots keep trumpeting this stupid line, "this type of prosecution has never happened before" as if it helps your side. The reason, of course, that there have not been these types of cases before is that our presidents have not been criminals. With the exception of Nixon.

See if you can answer this question: was it illegal for Trump to ask Raffensberger to find him votes, and if so, would it justify prosecution? Please show your work.

Or, to bring it a little closer to home, explain how it was NOT illegal for Ray to solicit unauthorized electors to sign a ballot certifying Georgia's electoral votes for Trump, when there was not an iota of evidence that would show Trump actually won more votes in Georgia than Biden.

 

[p5mmr9]

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment

Do they? What interest does an appellate court have outside the rule of law?

 

[finesse]

Do they? What interest does an appellate court have outside the rule of law?

I had wondered that myself. I was under the impression that was literally all they were to consider.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment and they exercised that right.

That is neither the court’s mission or right.

 

[ChileG]

What the COA's was saying was that this case brought by Fani's office was the first of its kind, where a County DA's office brought criminal charges against an ex President of the United States (and President elect). If you're going to bring such an action, where the entire nation and world are watching, you better not engage in actions which have an appearance of impropriety since this will cause the nation and world to lose confidence in the American judicial system. In an "ordinary" case, this wouldn't be enough but this prosecution is unique.

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment and they exercised that right. Thank goodness.

Voting for a guy who tried to overturn a fair election using the power of the presidency is disgraceful. Just my opinion.
DGAF that he is escaping justice on a technicality.

 

[Ramrouser]

Yeah, that's not a legal argument. That's just a word salad wrapping the core idea, which is "must help Dear Leader."

Note that "the first of its kind" actually cuts against your side. If this was the first of its kind, and you say that makes it different, then there was no concrete standard for Fani to follow. You idiots keep trumpeting this stupid line, "this type of prosecution has never happened before" as if it helps your side. The reason, of course, that there have not been these types of cases before is that our presidents have not been criminals. With the exception of Nixon.

See if you can answer this question: was it illegal for Trump to ask Raffensberger to find him votes, and if so, would it justify prosecution? Please show your work.

It all depends on what a jury would determine was the intent of Trump in his statements to the SOS.

As we know, Trump stated to Raffensberger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes." Technically, he didn't expressly ask Raffensberger to find the votes but clearly that was implied. It is not clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Trump was asking the SOS to commit an illegal act.

That's the way Trump talks. Trump's legal team denies that the word "find" was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined the SOS would "find that you have many [ballots] that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries." Argument is that Trump was simply asking the SOS to reexamine the evidence.