Election and Jan 6 charges

[BobDole]

Can they put Judge Judy on this at least?

[DJT]

40 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Like I said, I’m making an effort to use words like allegedly and seemingly, I agree with you. But just like you can have your opinion of the indictment before reading it, I can have an opinion of the indictment after reading it. Doesn’t make it a fool hearted errand. 

It’s certainly worth reading to, at minimum, get a sense of the direction the prosecution will go and the strategy it’ll use. I’m just saying the nature of and purpose of an indictment is to make the accused appear as guilty as possible while leaving out as much as they can that may point to holes or weaknesses in their case, up to and including exculpatory evidence. That being the, er, case, it could look like a slam dunk, and corporate media will certainly pump that story out as much as people are willing to hear it, but the actual case might be extremely weak and hanging on stretched interpretations of the evidence and the actual law (which this prosecutor is known for doing).

I’d still put money on a deferred prosecution agreement with the condition Trump drops out of the Presidential race.

[Paul158]

3 minutes ago, BobDole said:

Can they put Judge Judy on this at least?

I'm leaning toward the federal judge in Delaware.

[DJT]

5 minutes ago, BobDole said:

Can they put Judge Judy on this at least?

They can’t afford her.

[Paul158]

12 minutes ago, DJT said:

It’s certainly worth reading to, at minimum, get a sense of the direction the prosecution will go and the strategy it’ll use. I’m just saying the nature of and purpose of an indictment is to make the accused appear as guilty as possible while leaving out as much as they can that may point to holes or weaknesses in their case, up to and including exculpatory evidence. That being the, er, case, it could look like a slam dunk, and corporate media will certainly pump that story out as much as people are willing to hear it, but the actual case might be extremely weak and hanging on stretched interpretations of the evidence and the actual law (which this prosecutor is known for doing).

I’d still put money on a deferred prosecution agreement with the condition Trump drops out of the Presidential race.

I agree. That seems like the theme (or the goal) of all these indictments from the very beginning. To knock Trump out of running for president.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Paul158
missed a word

[Paul158]

6 minutes ago, DJT said:

They can’t afford her.

She was only making 47 million a year She is worth 440 million.

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

He certainly was attacked more.  Now you could argue much of it was his own doing, he could've behaved better and reduced the level of attacks.  However, this is who he is, I dont like him never did but everyone knew who he was when running in the primary.  The left argues much more than the right that we should accept diversity, he is a very diverse character out there on the edge so accept him for who he is and if you are the other side argue about his policy.  I will always maintain that CNN got him elected.  There were something like 12 candidates in the primary and early debates, prob 5 that would've made good candidates for the GOP.  CNN wouldn't stop talking about Trump thats all they wanted too talk about, he got so much free PR.

Meh.  Trump is targeted more on social media. But only because he begs for it.  Apparently that works for him, at least with his base.  There is some truth in him getting points for the left hating him.

MAGA land would run naked without F** Joe Biden and F** You if you voted for him shirts.  Let's Go Brandon has been a heckuva ride.  See that in sporting events, churches, school board meetings, pretty much every where.  Never a shortage of doctored up videos.  Saw his face endlessly on gas pumps.  Biden is not getting a free ride, but he shows at least a little Presidential dignity.

[WrestlingRasta]

14 minutes ago, DJT said:

It’s certainly worth reading to, at minimum, get a sense of the direction the prosecution will go and the strategy it’ll use. I’m just saying the nature of and purpose of an indictment is to make the accused appear as guilty as possible while leaving out as much as they can that may point to holes or weaknesses in their case, up to and including exculpatory evidence. That being the, er, case, it could look like a slam dunk, and corporate media will certainly pump that story out as much as people are willing to hear it, but the actual case might be extremely weak and hanging on stretched interpretations of the evidence and the actual law (which this prosecutor is known for doing).

I’d still put money on a deferred prosecution agreement with the condition Trump drops out of the Presidential race.

I mostly agree with you, except for the part they are laid out to make the charged looked as guilty as possible. There is a lot of evidence that comes out at trial that isn’t included indictments. They’re meant to look just guilty to justify going to trial. 
 

I used to think some kind of agreement to effectively ‘go away’ would be the goal with these. After reading this one and (a decent part of) the Florida one, I don’t know that’s the case anymore. They appear to be set on sending him to prison. 

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Meh.  Trump is targeted more on social media.

Not on social media (unless this is one) so wouldn't know about that.

[BobDole]

10 minutes ago, DJT said:

It’s certainly worth reading to, at minimum, get a sense of the direction the prosecution will go and the strategy it’ll use. I’m just saying the nature of and purpose of an indictment is to make the accused appear as guilty as possible while leaving out as much as they can that may point to holes or weaknesses in their case, up to and including exculpatory evidence. That being the, er, case, it could look like a slam dunk, and corporate media will certainly pump that story out as much as people are willing to hear it, but the actual case might be extremely weak and hanging on stretched interpretations of the evidence and the actual law (which this prosecutor is known for doing).

I’d still put money on a deferred prosecution agreement with the condition Trump drops out of the Presidential race.

There is no slam dunk in a case like this due to how high profile it is and the lawyers that are involved. One misstep by the prosecution will kill this case.

That being said bringing charges against a former president need to be as ironclad as possible in order to get a conviction. If this is a political witch hunt, the dumDems(or the smart ones if they are criminals) know that if they get anything less than a conviction that it will stir up the base like no other and severely hinder any chances in upcoming elections.

If this is anyone but a very wealthy person this case would last about 15 minutes at most.

[WrestlingRasta]

More on the judge in DC. You can’t make this shit up, a female black immigrant. (A sistren from Kingston no less) I don’t think it has any bearing on the outcome, just the theatre of it is amazing. 
 

Apparently she has a reputation of decorum too that his history of berating prosecutors and witnesses on social media may not be allowed. 

 

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

Not on social media (unless this is one) so wouldn't know about that.

Is your vermin huntin' blind a snow cave?  Lol

[mspart]

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘no, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘but not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …

What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time. 

Bolded items are my edits. 

mspart

[mspart]

JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, we're waiting to see what new evidence they might have. I mean, one of the more intriguing things is the suggestion that they have a witness tampering claim. That may produce some new evidence we haven't seen. But, you know, Jack Smith has a reputation for stretching criminal statutes beyond the breaking point. You know, he went after the Virginia Governor, secured a conviction there that was unanimously overturned because he just stretched the law too far.

This is an interesting thing to say.   Others have said similar regarding Smith, that he goes beyond the mark.   I think what Turley is saying in these two excerpts is that Smith has a history of distorting what he can to get a conviction, and that the evidence that we have in general does not support what the indictment says.  Those are two large hurdles the prosecution will have to overcome.   Turley's example of SCOTUS above is pretty telling about how this will probably turn out. 

mspart

 

[DJT]

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

More on the judge in DC. You can’t make this shit up, a female black immigrant. (A sistren from Kingston no less) I don’t think it has any bearing on the outcome, just the theatre of it is amazing. 
 

Apparently she has a reputation of decorum too that his history of berating prosecutors and witnesses on social media may not be allowed. 

 

She’s also shown questionable ethics for her refusal to recuse herself from cases where she had a clear conflict of interest. One was where she was an attorney for Theranos in a suit involving Fusion GPS, then was on the bench for the federal case, DOJ v Fusion GPS.

Edited August 2, 2023 by DJT

[Husker_Du]

this seems....not level

 

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, DJT said:

She’s also shown questionable ethics for her refusal to recuse herself from cases where she had a clear conflict of interest. One was where she was an attorney for Theranos in a suit involving Fusion GPS, then was on the bench for the federal case, DOJ v Fusion GPS.

She must be gunning for SCOTUS!

[DJT]

Just now, Plasmodium said:

She must be gunning for SCOTUS!

Her rich friend, Elizabeth Holmes, is doing a dime (then owes almost a half billion dollars in restitution), so she’d have nobody to take her on vacation. I think that disqualifies her.

[Plasmodium]

1 minute ago, DJT said:

Her rich friend, Elizabeth Holmes, is doing a dime (then owes almost a half billion dollars in restitution), so she’d have nobody to take her on vacation. I think that disqualifies her.

She lost her sugar mama?   Not much of a shot then.  

[Paul158]

24 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

this seems....not level

 

Should have recused herself.

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘no, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘but not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …

What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time. 

Bolded items are my edits. 

mspart

I agree in theory what Turley is saying, and agree it is really hard to prove what someone does or does not believe, but a couple things interesting in regard to what he said: 1) the indictment lays out in the beginning they are conceding he has the right to say whatever he wants, true or not…then goes on to lay out how and why they are charging him for his actions, and (some of) the evidence they have to support it. 2) Yes jurors are going to hear from/about a couple lawyers he brought in late in the game that told him yeah you can do this. But those jurors are also going to hear from, in many cases directly from sitting ten feet away,   his appointed White House counsel, his appointed senior Justice officials, his appointed state department officials, Republican secretaries of state, who told him he had zero legal basis.  The electors scheme is a big part of this. If they are able to prove that, that has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech’. And they are going to hear this at a time they are sequestered away from media and social media and talking points from either side.
 

It’s not a slam dunk by any means, no matter what the evidence is…..it’s Trump.  But it doesn’t seem flimsy at all.   

 

[Plasmodium]

4 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Should have recused herself.

Why?

[DJT]

31 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

this seems....not level

 

Her skeletons, unlike Tom Cruise, are coming out of the closet.

[Paul158]

3 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Why?

She worked at the same law firm as Hunter Biden. She also worked  closely  with Energy Company Burisma.

[Plasmodium]

4 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

She worked at the same law firm as Hunter Biden. She also worked  closely  with Energy Company Burisma.

She was already a judge before Hunter and Burisma rolled in.