The Georgia Case Against Trump

Trump's Georgia indictment has much in common with the most recent federal case against him. But also breaks some new ground.

Flag of Georgia.

 

Yesterday's Georgia state indictment against Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election in that state includes charges similar to those in the recent federal indictment filed by special counsel Jack Smith. But it also breaks considerable new ground. To the extent that the charges deal with similar issues, Georgia is - in my view - well-justified in prosecuting Trump, for much the same reasons as the federal government is. But some of the charges raise technical legal issues I prefer to leave to commentators with greater relevant expertise.

Some of the charges against Trump and 18 other defendants in the Georgia indictment are similar to recently filed federal charges. For example, both feature charges of fraud related to Trump's scheme to replace Georgia's electors with slates of fake electors, and pressure state officials into falsifying vote counts. While some technical details diverge, there legal case against Trump on these issues is strong (see my discussion of the relevant federal issues here and here), and there is a strong rationale for prosecution based on the need for retribution and deterrence.

As in the federal case, the relevant Georgia fraud statutes (which focus on defrauding the government and election fraud) are not confined to property crimes. And, as in that case, Trump is not being prosecuted merely for claiming he won the election or that fraud occurred. Rather, the indictment details a long list of schemes to substitute fake electors for real ones and otherwise coerce and defraud state officials.

Some might wonder why state officials can prosecute Trump for much the same as crimes as the feds. After all, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars defendants from being twice "put in jeopardy" for "the same offence." Part of the answer is that Trump has not yet been tried (much less convicted or acquitted) on the federal charges.

But in addition, the Supreme Court has long held that there is a "dual-sovereignty" exception to the double jeopardy clause - a rule recently reaffirmed by the Court in its 7-2 decision in Gamble v. United States (2019). Because states and the federal government are separate sovereigns, the Court reasoned, they are permitted to each try the same person for what is substantively the same offense.

In my view, there is a lot of merit  to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and Neil Gorsuch's dissenting opinions, in Gamble, arguing that the dual-sovereignty doctrine is wrong. But the Court is unlikely to overturn that rule anytime soon. Thus, Georgia and the feds can both prosecute Trump (and perhaps others) for similar election-related offenses. If Trump gets acquitted in one proceeding, that doesn't give him a pass on the other. Conservatives and others who don't like that can blame the Supreme Court.

Along with these similarities to the federal charges, there are also key differences. Many of the counts against Trump and other defendants are under Georgia's state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). I am sure there are lots of newly minted RICO experts commenting away on Twitter and elsewhere. But I'm not going to pretend to be one of them, and so will have to leave this issue to others.

There are a number of other Georgia-specific charges, as well, such as claims that some of Trump's co-conspirators illegally accessed state election data. I will leave that to relevant experts, as well.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the federal and Georgia indictments is that the latter features 19 defendants, while the former is limited to Trump (though the feds may well file charges against others in separate proceedings).

Some of the Georgia co-defendants are the same people as Trump's unindicted co-conspirators from the federal indictment, most notably Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell. Others are lesser-known figures, including some whose involvement in election skullduggery appears to have been limited to Georgia. The inclusion of 19 total defendants is likely to make for a longer and more complicated trial and appellate process. Jack Smith may have chosen to charge Trump separately to avoid such problems.

If time permits, I may have more to say about some of Trump's co-defendants in future posts. One of them - Eastman - is a person I knew for many years in his capacity as a law professor; but I should emphasize (in case prosecutors are reading this!) that I have no inside knowledge of his involvement in Trump's schemes to overturn the election.

Experts are divided on whether Trump can potentially force the removal of the Georgia case to federal court. If he can do so, he might potentially get a more favorable jury pool, and also possibly claim immunity to some or all of the charges on the grounds that he was just engaged in his official duty. I highly doubt the latter gambit will work, even if the former succeeds. Trump was pretty obviously acting to advance his private interests as a candidate, not discharge his official responsibilities. But this too is an issue best left to those with greater expertise.

Finally, it's worth noting that the Georgia charges cannot be pardoned by the president, as they are state offenses, not federal ones. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp cannot pardon them either, as the pardon power in that state is controlled by an independent board, not the governor. And even the board cannot issue a pardon until after at least five years have passed since the applicant completed his sentence.

In sum, the Georgia case against Trump deepens his legal jeopardy, and at least some of the charges seem compelling. On others, I must defer to the assessment of commentators with greater expertise.

Comments

[Martinned]

Yes, that dual sovereigns rule has always struck me as wrong.

For info, last year the EU court of just held that the double jeopardy rule also applies to successive law enforcement actions by different EU Member States, who are definitely each sovereign.

Case C-151/20, Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Nordzucker AG and Others

(Note that this judgment, being based on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, does not apply to all criminal law enforcement, but only to areas of law that are governed by EU law, such as competition law.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

With the retirement of Brennan and Marshall and the addition of Souter and Thomas, the double jeopardy rule was tightened so that it applies only when the actual elements of the crime are the same, not just the same conduct. Compare Grady v. Corbin, 1990 with United States v. Dixon, 1993 (I commented on these here on May 29). With states and the feds working from different criminal codes, it seems that double jeopardy would apply now only where the statutory language matches pretty exactly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's a serious shame, but it's also a consequence of the vast expansion of federal reach; Originally there wasn't much opportunity for dual prosecutions, because federal and state jurisdiction would almost never overlap, if one had jurisdiction, the other wouldn't.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Repeating it doesn't make this any more true than when you originally made it up.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I hate to admit when Brett has something of a point, but . . . If you’re my age you might remember the “tough on crime” era of the 1990’s when Congress strained to federalize any crime that could possibly involve “interstate commerce” so that they could extend the death penalty to it. On the other hand in some areas of law (for example, gun regulation) state laws are useless and the feds need to get involved.

[hoppy025]

Let's assume for the sake of argument your statement that "state laws are useless for guns, and the feds need to get involved."

If that's true, then states passing laws against magazines, "assault weapons," and nearly anything else are acting in pure bad faith, because they're passing laws they know to be useless.

If you're admitting that the anti-gun left acts in bad faith, and promulgates laws in blue states purely to piss off gun owners, why should we ascribe any good faith to anything you do?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay? It’s certainly true that federal criminal law has expanded over the course of American history to cover more crimes that would traditionally have been handled at the state level. (That said, your one example is also wrong: most gun crimes are still prosecuted in state court.)

But since the first federal crimes were created but the Crimes Act of 1790, there have been many ways to commit federal crimes that would also be state offenses. Brett Bellmore’s repeated insistence to the contrary is false nostalgia for a libertarian fairyland that never was.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My example is that only federal regulation of guns would be effective. But it is deficient. Most gun crimes should be prosecuted federally.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is a stupid tangent that has nothing to do with Brett Bellmore’s original stupid “point”, but okay…

Why?

[Brett Bellmore]

My "stupid point" is that, under a system where "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", the states and the federal government should almost never have power over the same topic, vastly reducing the opportunity for double jeopardy.

This "dual sovereign" sourced doubt jeopardy is a product of the federal government reaching beyond its enumerated powers, and being allowed by the courts to exercise the general police power it deliberately wasn't granted.

[loki13]

Except, of course, as has already been pointed out ... this has been the case since 1790.

So, unless the people who wrote the Constitution know less than Brett Bellmore, then you pining for the long-lost libertarian fantasyland is just untrue. Not to mention that (1) libertarianism didn't exist back then, (2) the founders weren't libertarians, and (3) you aren't a libertarian, except to the extent that it advances your policy goals.

Relate- Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution To Be.

[M L]

Area Communist Passionate Attacker of What Founders Imagined Constitution To Be 😉

[Krayt]

Don’t forget the double jeopardy bonus round, where the feds get you for “denying rights”, pulled out only if the state case fails. A free do-over to satisfy (perhaps well-deserved) blood lust.

Which still doesn't make it right.

[M L]

“But since the first federal crimes were created but the Crimes Act of 1790”

It seems that Act punished “treason, piracy, counterfeiting, as well as crimes committed on the high seas or against the law of nations”

Further, ‘Several offenses were limited to acts committed in places “under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States”. Such regulations would have applied in the “Seat of the Government”, federal enclaves, and federal territories.’

I'm no expert on this Act, but this only seems to reinforce the point that the criminal jurisdictions of the states and the federal government were relatively separate spheres. It suggests Congress had no general plenary power over criminal matters within the States.

Of course all of that has been destroyed as the basic founding principles and system of government has been inverted.

[M L]

"On the other hand in some areas of law (for example, gun regulation) state laws are useless and the feds need to get involved."

The 2nd amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, while (originally) not prohibiting the states from doing any such thing.

[hoppy025]

It absolutely is true. There never were federal laws prior to the modern era criminalizing all robberies of businesses, all arson fires of rental buildings, all carjackings, all illegal drug possession, all gun possession by felons, and so on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the point is moot -- if this prosecution is legitimate, then murdering random lawyers becomes legitimate, and that never could be allowed to become legitimate. If you burn down the entire system to persecute one man, the system will be in rubble when it is most needed to stabilize a tumultuous society.

If there are no rules -- and it now appears that there aren't any -- then why not just kill opposing counsel? Why not kill the judge? Why shouldn't the police simply make the defense bar "disappear" as they are only defending guilty people. And it goes without saying that all of your political opponents go to theGulag.

Conversely, if there are no rules, what's going to STOP any of this from happening?!?!?

Hobbes put it best: "life will be boorish, brutal, and, above all else, brief."

The Dems aren't just playing with fire, they're playing with high explosives....

[Martinned]

if this prosecution is legitimate, then murdering random lawyers becomes legitimate

This is the kind of subtle analysis we come to the VC for!

[Sarcastr0]

This is just a tantrum. If Ed does not like it it is not legitimate and then blood will run in the streets.

A toddler’s argument.

[Tom for equal rights]

brett's statement is factually correct

[TheAmazingEmu]

FWIW, Dixon is a little murkier than you'd expect - treating the conduct necessary to prove an element and the elements themselves as somewhat synonymous (Rehnquist, iirc, points this out), but I do agree that the appointment of Scalia to the court and then the shift from Marshall to Thomas dramatically limited double jeopardy protections.

[Old Smokin' Egg]

I'm bothered by dual sovereignty as a backdoor approach to double jeopardy myself. On the other hand, I can see where something of the sort might be necessary.

For instance, in the Jim Crow south, perpetrators of lynchings might well have been acquitted by all-white juries, despite the manifest evidence of their guilt. To secure justice and to deter further lynching, it might well have been necessary to try the case again, in a court less biased in the defendents' favor.

It's just as easy to imagine such a situation today. Many of us will recall that O. J. Simpson's acquittal on murder charges was pretty much guaranteed after it was decided to try him in Los Angeles. And I suspect that a Left Coast jury might well be disinclined to convict a participant in the mostly-peaceful BLM protests, even if said participant had been caught dead to rights torching cars and looting liquor stores.

[Area Man]

Wouldn’t the jurors in those scenarios come from geographical areas that mostly overlap with the state jurisdictions? No reason to think the results would be any different.

And in the “left coast” cases you referenced, what’s the federal nexus to give a federal court jurisdiction? Murder and property damage are almost always tried in state court.

[hoppy025]

Arson of any building affecting interstate commerce is prosecutable in the federal system, and the courts have been very lax in determining what affecting interstate commerce means.

[David Nieporent]

No reason… except actual empirical historical evidence.

For one thing, the prosecutors in the federal cases were actually trying to secure convictions, and the judges in the federal cases weren't throwing the cases.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the constitutional thing to do, under the terms of the 14th amendment, (Which expressly limits its reach to state actors!) would be to subject the prosecutors, and the state judges, to a federal law under that enabling legislation clause. Because they’re the ones violating the 14th amendment, NOT the non-state actor who strung the guy up.

The jurors you can't do anything about, because they're never supposed to be subject to retaliation on the basis of how they vote. Ever.

[Martinned]

The jurors you can’t do anything about, because they’re never supposed to be subject to retaliation on the basis of how they vote. Ever.

Where does it say that? When serving, they are exercising state power just like the judge and the prosecutor are.

[Mr. Bumble]

"When serving, they are exercising state power just like the judge and the prosecutor are."
Where does it say that?
Aren't they the counter to state power?

[Martinned]

No, they are the counter to what would otherwise be a power of the judge. There is no clearer example of an exercise of state power than "Off with their heads!"

[Krychek_2]

Once upon a time, in the bad old days, it wasn't uncommon for the local newspapers to publish the names, addresses and places of employment of jurors in newsworthy cases. If you want to know the names of the jurors on the Lindbergh kidnapping case, or who convicted the Rosenbergs of espionage, just go pull the newspapers from the time. Why anyone ever thought that was a good idea is beyond me.

[Martinned]

Isn't free speech great? Who needs privacy anyway?

[Tom for equal rights]

Area Man 15 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User "Wouldn’t the jurors in those scenarios come from geographical areas that mostly overlap with the state jurisdictions? "

that is both yes and no – In the Georgia case, the jurors would only come from fulton County heavily democrats. The federal case would be encompass much larger geographic region of Georgia, including suburbs , and rural areas therefore much larger pool of republicans.

The blue red divide isnt so much left coast & right coast as much as urban vs rural (with suburbs more purplish)

[Tom for equal rights]

Gorsuch's dissent in Gamble is correct.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ken White talked about the Georgia RICO statute, he had given it a quick perusal. Apparently it's a little different than other state RICO statutes, and it may put these defendants into some legal jeopardy. I'd be interested to read what the lawyers here think about that. I would not be interested to read the usual pro-Trump anti-Trump bickering, but I'm sure we'll get plenty of that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd like to know why Stacey Abrahams isn't in jail.

[bernard11]

Well, IANAL, but I'll take a shot.

She hasn't committed any crimes? Could it be as simple as that?

[loki13]

Well, see, in the 70s in Massachusetts, she's be in jail for the crimes that Ed imagines she has committed!

[David Nieporent]

I like how Dr. Ed is so informed about her but has no idea what her name actually is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She's been impersonating the Governor for years now...

[shawn_dude]

Gotta hate uppity women, amiright?!

[Squire Al]

Two reasons. She didn't storm the Capital and try to change the result by force.
And, that's not her name.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd say the Fulton County DA's Office is a Monkey House, but that'd be insulting to Monkeys.
This is the same Office that took 3.5 years to try Brian Nichols, who murdered a Judge, Court Reporter, a Deputy Sherriff, escaped and killed an INS agent, oh yeah,
at the time of the murders he was being tried the second time for a rape that they got a mistrial on the first time.
What a dumbass, he just waited it out, he'd be a free man.
Fulton County, where the shit hole John Louis represented is, and if it wasn't for North Fulton County, it'd be whatever worse than a shithole is.
It's part of why the Braves play in Cobb County (with an "Atlanta" mailing address)

Frank

[David Nieporent]

It may be "the same office" in the sense that it's got the same name ("Fulton County DA") on the letterhead, but this was 15 years ago and had an entirely different DA, so it's entirely unclear what the point of bringing it up was, other than an excuse for more racism on your part.

[Frank Drackman]

It's a tradition of incompetence in the ATL, since the 1970's, not really sure what happened then to start it.

[Frank Drackman]

And I know you're not from Jaw-Jaw, but Fanny (no one in Jaw-Jaw calls her Fawn-ee) was an Ass-istant (emphasis on the "Ass") DA for 16 years with Fulton County.
I.E., during the whole Brian Nichols Debacle. (you have to specify the Fulton County DA Debacles, as they're so numerous)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Charades like me that Georgia was founded as a prison colony and make me wonder if the Klan was a necessary evil down there, much like predators are necessary to keep a herd of deer healthy.

"Impersonating a government official" -- yea, someone is going to believe that THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is actually a state bureaucrat. Is there a "straight face" requirement on criminal charges, i.e. you gotta be able to read them with a straight face?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is there a “straight face” requirement on criminal charges, i.e. you gotta be able to read them with a straight face?

Maybe you should start with just reading them?

[David Nieporent]

How do you know he didn't? Just because he is arguing how absurd it is to charge Donald Trump with something that Donald Trump wasn't charged with?

[CindyF]

TDS had almost destroyed the legal profession. In order to "get Trump", they are willing to abandon all former opinions, professional ethics, laws, and precedents.

I hope this boomerangs on the left just as bad as Harry Reid's abandonment of the filibuster for federal judges.

[David Nieporent]

What former opinions, professional ethics, laws, or precedents were abandoned?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Posting indictments before the grand jury hands them up?
This alone is grounds for disbarment, let alone dismissal.

And how the hell does a Georgia County prosecutor get to prosecute what was done in other states, eg Kentucky, Michigan, etc...

[David Nieporent]

It is not, in fact, grounds for disbarment, let alone dismissal. (Who do you think would be disbarred because a clerk hit "post" too early? What would be dismissed? On what grounds?)

[not guilty]

"Posting indictments before the grand jury hands them up?
This alone is grounds for disbarment, let alone dismissal."

Assuming that happened, how is it grounds for dismissal? Whose rights were endangered by a premature posting? (If anyone, the State could be disadvantaged if an accused person fled to avoid arrest.)

"And how the hell does a Georgia County prosecutor get to prosecute what was done in other states, eg Kentucky, Michigan, etc…"

Under Ga. Code § 16-14-11, in any criminal proceeding, the crime shall be considered to have been committed in any county in which an incident of racketeering occurred or in which an interest or control of an enterprise or real or personal property is acquired or maintained. Venue is appropriate in any county where any of the incidents of racketeering occurred, not just the incidents of racketeering involving the particular defendant. Lowery v. State, 347 Ga. App. 26, 31, 815 S.E.2d 625 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank -- the GA Governor can replace an incompetent DA...

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed gets the law wrong again; what a shock.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Technical issues"....ie even Somin realizes what a disaster this indictment is.

OMG. Trump told people on Twitter to watch the news! Evidence of conspiracy! Jail him!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Don't forget when he illegally reserved that meeting room!

[David Nieporent]

what a disaster this indictment is.

Is that your expert opinion as a fake lawyer?

OMG. Trump told people on Twitter to watch the news! Evidence of conspiracy! Jail him!

Ah, yes, I see that's exactly what it is. A graduate of Armchair Law School — only slightly less prestigious than Twitter Law School — who doesn't understand how conspiracy works.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh tell us Mr. Expert who doesn't know who actually manufactures his own OTC medicine...

How does telling people to watch the news count as "conspiracy"?

I await with anticipation your expert analysis.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you think that there might be some more to the allegations than just that in the indictment somewhere?

[David Nieporent]

Do you think that he actually bothered to read the indictment? Do you think he understands the difference between the overt acts that are an element of a conspiracy charge and the object of the conspiracy itself, and that only the latter need involve an illegal act?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Still waiting Mr. Knows so much....

Go on. Explain in depth how Act 22 was "was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy”"

We're waiting. You still haven't explained anything.

[Snorkle]

Jesus, you're so clueless you didn't even notice getting pwned.

Look, if you want to compete with the likes of Tom Fitton, you're going to have to work harder than that.

[Frank Drackman]

in the year 2000 using the term "pwned" (I said "in the year 2000" not now) will get you "terminated with extreme prejudice"
Seriously, you say "pwned" (how is that even pronounced? don't know, don't care) I know you have a (Homo)Man-Bun, Play Hacky-Sack, and wear "Affliction" T-shirts, oh, and you have tattoos, and closest you've been to the military is standing behind a real Hero waiting to get into "Top Gun/Maverick"

Frank

[Snorkle]

It appears I’m so uncool I triggered Frank.

Someone find him a (very current) safe space to recover in.

Oh, wait, that's called "Florida" now.

[Frank Drackman]

said like someone that just got caught in the (Allegorical) Crosshairs of my (Allegorical) Night Vision Scope
1: Man-Bun Check
2: Hacky Sack Check
3: Affliction T-Shirt Check
4: Tattoos Check
5: Never served (I know, "Homo, much better now")

Tell me which ones I got wrong (For JC's sake, it's AlGores Internets, I don't have a camera on your computer (or do I???*)

Frank (No Man/bun, no Hacky Sack, no Afflictions, no Tattoos (it's a Jewish Thang, something the Nazi's deface you with to identify you) and proud "Combat" Veteran (OK, Gulf War 1 deserves all the """ it gets)

* I don't

[Armchair Lawyer]

All these people saying I'm "clueless"....yet still can't seem to explain it.

Huh.

[Nige]

When you're unable to refute the explanation, so you can't even acknowledge it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Can't refute an explanation that isn't ever given.

[Nige]

Do you think Trump's legal team will take a similar approach, claiming they can't find explanations or arguments anywhere, therefore refusing to even attempt to refute them? Would that work?

[Gandydancer]

Nige fantasizes that there was an explanation as to why urging people to watch OAN was an act in furtherance of a conspiracy.

Nige was an idiot even before his brain was on drugs.

[Nige]

I don't, actually, at least two people here have provided explanations and context. I guess you have the same selective blindness as AL?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What law school and what state bar exam let you graduate and pass the bar without understanding what is involved in the crime of "conspiracy"?

Do tell.

[Gandydancer]

What law school and what state bar exam let you graduate and pass (assuming you did) still capable of believing that urging the public to watch the news can be an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy?

Do tell.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why are you answering for Armchair Lawyer?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If they aren't in any indictment, where do you think they might be? In some Democrat Star Chamber?

[jb]

Although awkwardly phrased, I interpreted the wording as more "than just THAT in the indictment" (i.e., there's other stuff in the indictment " rather than that there was more claimed "than that in the indictment".

[Gandydancer]

When you see a turd floating in the yellow liquid in the punch bowl it’s not necessary to sample the rest in an effort to find out what the liquid is. That Act 22 is in the indictment tells you all that you need to know about what it is.

[Josh R]

Watch the news?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Among the many many little things that supposedly led to the conspiracy was Act 22.

Act22: On or about the 3rd day of December2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing!" This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy"

And at this point, we've jumped the shark.

[Randal]

As DN has explained, an "overt act" means that you don't understand the first thing about conspiracies.

For conspiracy theories, of course, you'll be my first best go-to source.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh, please explain it for us poor stupid fools. Explain how telling someone to watch the news is an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy.

You seem to not be able to.

[Randal]

How about if I teach you how to fish?

Google: overt act wikipedia

[Armchair Lawyer]

Nope, you still can't explain it. Funny, no matter how much you claim it is,....no one seems to be able to accurately explain it.

[Randal]

Wait a sec, now I’m confused. Are you saying you’re too stupid to google, too stupid to read the page, or too stupid to understand it?

In case it's the first one, I'll do you a favor. Here’s your damn fish:

In criminal law, an overt act is one that can be clearly proved by evidence and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the mind to commit a crime.[1] Such an act, even if innocent per se, can potentially be used as evidence against someone during a trial to show participation in a crime.[2] For instance, the purchase of a ski mask, which can conceal identity, is generally a legal act but may be an overt act if it is purchased in the planning of a bank robbery.

If you’re simply too stupid to read or understand it, then you can’t be helped I guess. You’ll just have to soldier on in ignorance.

[Armchair Lawyer]

OK… Now tell us how the tweet “Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing” does any of that. What “Criminal intent” does that tweet support.

Bonus points if you can identify the actual crime that this tweet was meant to be an actual Overt Act to support. Cite case law and code number.

[Randal]

Oh my god.

Google: trump georgia indictment

[Armchair Lawyer]

And you've failed. If you can't explain it, you've got nothing. At least be honest.

[Randal]

For the benefit of the audience:

Defendants Donald John Trump, Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, John Charles Eastman, Mark Randall Meadows, Kenneth John Chesebro... unindicted co-conspirators Individual 1 through Individual 30, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, constituted a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury.

If you were filing false documents and perpetrating a fraud, you'd want to give it all an air legitimacy with the public by promoting their apparently newsworthy appearance in official proceedings.

[David Nieporent]

If you were filing false documents and perpetrating a fraud, you’d want to give it all an air legitimacy with the public by promoting their apparently newsworthy appearance in official proceedings.

Armchair Lawyer keeps stupidly trying to look at the acts in isolation. Look at Act 22 in conjunction with Acts 23 - 27.

[Michael Ejercito]

Did that tweet contain coded communications to these co-conspirators?

That seems to be the only imaginable way this could, for example, further a conspiracy to commit perjury or forgery.

[Randal]

See Armchair? You really want to be on the same side as Michael here?

[Josh R]

I'm not persuaded Act 22 belongs, even in the context of 23-27. The latter five acts stand on their own merits as overt acts.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Since Mr. Nieporent is unable to actually explain it, despite repeated chances, we'll go into the issues for the rest of you.

This is a criminal conspiracy case, regarding overt acts. For a criminal conspiracy, there needs to be a crime that is to be planned. To give a simplified example, imagine people plan to committ a bank robbery. In planning the bank robbery, they make a number of acts designed to support the robbery. They acquire firearms a few days before the heist (an overt act). They acquire gloves and masks (an overt act). They are spotted making notes outside the bank (an overt act). They tweet support for the Red Sox (Not an overt act).

Now, in regards to this case, there needs to be an actual criminal act, and the overt acts must support the criminal act. "Challenging an election" is not a criminal act. "Influencing public opinion" is not a criminal act. And where Mr. Neirporent is having issues is, tweeting about hearings on a news networks....has a very very difficult time somwhow being an overt act towards any actual criminal act. Trying to twist a tweet about a news network to support fraud is nonsensical. It's like tweeting about the Red Sox.

Now undoubtedly Mr. Nieporent will have some technical detail to correct, but I'm just an Armchair Lawyer, not a paralegal.

[jdoeford]

"“Challenging an election” is not a criminal act."

Can't "challenging an election" by asking an official to change a voting result, and providing a false pretext for doing so, be a criminal act? That crosses the line between using legal and illegal means to challenge the result.

[Martinned]

@AL: Defrauding the United States is an actual criminal act, as many people have explained to you in the last week or two.

(And one that, by definition, involves communicating/speech.)

[Josh R]

Among the criminal acts alleged in the indictment are False Statements and Writings O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (e.g., Guiliani told state senators in a committee meeting that 96,600 mail-in ballots were counted even though there was no record they were returned, an outright lie).

[David Nieporent]

This is a criminal conspiracy case, regarding overt acts. For a criminal conspiracy, there needs to be a crime that is to be planned.

Sure. And the crimes that were planned were Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer, False Statements and Writings, Impersonating a Public Officer, Forgery, Filing False Documents, Influencing Witnesses, Election Fraud, Computer Theft, Computer Trespass, Computer Invasion of Privacy, and Defrauding the State. (And variants on these, like attempt and conspiracy.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

For all,

Those are alleged crimes (except for Martinned, defrauding the United States was not a crime mentioned in this indictment). Joeford, the criminal act would be the false pretext part.

Now you need part 2. "The overt acts must support the criminal act."

Please explain how a tweet about a news program is an overt act that supports (to pick one) "Computer Theft". This has been a continual failure.

[Josh R]

As I said previously, I am persuaded Act 22 does not belong. But so what? Acts 26 and 27 (also Trump tweets) easily do.

[jdoeford]

My understanding of the prosecution’s position on Act 22 is that the tweet qualified as an overt act because it promoted the dissemination of false statements made at the hearings.

Can that, in fact, legally qualify as an overt act? I’m really not inclined to argue the point, both because I'm not an expert in this area and because the issue is so minor. I don’t understand why you’re fixated on this one alleged overt act out of 100+. Removing Act 22 wouldn't invalidate the indictment.

[Randal]

Please explain how a tweet about a news program is an overt act that supports (to pick one) “Computer Theft”. This has been a continual failure.

I already explained this to you above. You've just chosen to ignore it and keep asking anyway.

[Frank Drackman]

"Wikipedia"!?!?!?
that's Authoritative!
Google "Dumb (as) Fuck"

Frank

[Josh R]

I'll grant you that one. And Act 1 doesn't belong as well. That still leaves 159 overt acts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Like reserving a meeting room!

[Josh R]

That was an overt act because the purpose of the meeting was to coordinate with the fake electors.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's the classic, "buying duct tape" overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to kidnap someone example.

But we shouldn't have to explain that to someone who claims to have legal knowledge.

[Gandydancer]

It was an overt act in furtherance of having a list of alternate electors to submit as part of a challenge to the Georgia-certified list, which is not a crime.

[Josh R]

The indictment alleges the challenge was known to be fraudulent by those who made the challenge (my note: perhaps Trump will get off as being delusional, but likely not the rest).

[not guilty]

"It was an overt act in furtherance of having a list of alternate electors to submit as part of a challenge to the Georgia-certified list, which is not a crime."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Gandydancer? I haven't done an exhaustive search of Georgia's criminal code, but check out Ga. Code § 16-10-20:

A person who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of state government or of the government of any county, city, or other political subdivision of this state shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's a lot wrong with much of the rest of it, that criminalizes free speech, opinion, areas that aren't factually clear necessarily, and so on. It's easier to focus on the counts honestly, than the acts (which can be gone into in depth).

Areas which may be unclear, but in which facts are asserted (but later might not be accurate) are then criminalized. And that's a big problem.

[Josh R]

You need to be very specific with what is wrong.

[Michael Ejercito]

Criminals laws have to be fairly specific as to what they prohibit.

[Josh R]

This idictment is very specific.

[Gandydancer]

The indictment is nonsense.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Many of the false statement counts are questionable, and have significant larger issues.

Generally speaking, false statement charges are made when an individual says they directly did or witnessed something, and that is later seen to be false. i.e. "I was in this location on this day." And then the court shows the person was somewhere else.

That's because it needs to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully made the statement.

What many of these counts allege is that the individual made a false statement in regards to voter fraud. Typically some number is used "ie That 2,506 felons voted illegally." It can reasonably be assumed the person did not directly witness that, but that they are obtaining the information from elsewhere and relating it, in the context of a subcommittee meeting.

The issue here is, you need to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual KNEW this information was false. Not just believed it "might" be false. But KNEW it was false, beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's too high a bar, unless you have evidence of them literally manufacturing the report. If they picked it up from another report somewhere or study, and believed it might be true....then it's going to be almost impossible to prove.

The reason these types of false statement charges are troubling is because of how easily they can be flipped around. Let's say in subcommittee meeting, someone on the other side says "There was no fraud in this election". Or "This was the most fraud-free election in years". Again, it could be demonstrated that this was a false statement. But again, the person needs to KNOW what they said was untrue. And that would need to be proven. But, like the first charges, they could in theory be brought. Almost impossible to prove. (Unless you had an amenable jury).

Many, many people make many many statements before subcommittee meetings on facts like these, which may not be entirely accurate, but may be partially supported by some report or facts somewhere. Anything from immigration benefits to the economy to assumptions about business matters.

[Josh R]

Giuliani said that 10,315 dead people voted. You think he can get away with such a specific statement by arguing he saw it from some source he didn't check it out, and thus has a reasonable basis to make the claim? I suspect he knows it was a bullshit claim. But let's say you are right and he gets off. That's a legal technicality that doesn't detract from the larger conclusion that they tried to steal an election.

[David Nieporent]

Giuliani said that 10,315 dead people voted. You think he can get away with such a specific statement by arguing he saw it from some source he didn’t check it out, and thus has a reasonable basis to make the claim? I suspect he knows it was a bullshit claim.

In any case, that's a factual defense, not a legal one. If the jury believes that he was saying it in good faith, then maybe it acquits him on that particular count. That's not an argument that the indictment is somehow improper.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Giuliani said that 10,315 dead people voted. You think he can get away with such a specific statement by arguing he saw it from some source he didn’t check it out, and thus has a reasonable basis to make the claim?"

Yes. Because what's really going on is the Giuliani is repeating/summarizing claims made by an expert witness in a sworn affidavit.

The source of that 10,315 claim is one Bryan Feels, CPA and owner of a data analytics firm, who has made a signed affidavit as an expert witness with regards to his calculations on the voter numbers. You can look it up online. Now, you can argue his calculations are wrong or based on incomplete data. Issue is...Giuliani isn't an expert in this field. That's why there are expert witnesses. And he was repeating/summarizing the witness's claims. As lawyers often do, in many situations.

Where this gets into very "novel" ground is the concept that if a lawyer repeats or summarizes an expert witness's sworn testimony or signed affidavit...and that affidavit is later found to be incorrect in some regards...the lawyer can and will now be criminally charged for making a false statement, years later. And that's honestly quite stunning.

Is this going to be a general rule that will be widely used? Can lawyers ever safely repeat or summarize information from sworn testimony or expert testimony if years later they could face criminal charges because some piece of it was inaccurate? These are items to consider.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

Your level of either stupidity or willful ignorance is incredible to watch. Not in a good way.

...a federal judge noted that Eastman, in a December 30, 2020, email, "relayed 'concerns' from President Trump's team 'about including specific numbers in the paragraph dealing with felons, deceased, moved, etc.'"

The next day, Eastman elaborated on those concerns: "Although the President signed a verification for [a state court filing] back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate."

Trump apparently was unfazed. "President Trump and his attorneys ultimately filed the complaint with the same inaccurate numbers without rectifying, clarifying, or otherwise changing them," U.S. District Judge David O. Carter wrote. "President Trump, moreover, signed a verification swearing under oath that the incorporated, inaccurate numbers 'are true and correct' or 'believed to be true and correct' to the best of his knowledge and belief."

In other words, Carter said, "the emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public." Carter concluded that the messages therefore were "sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States," making them available to the House committee under the "crime-fraud exception" to attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

Shorter: There is evidence that Trump (and Giuliani) in fact knew the expert's numbers were bogus, but they went ahead and used the numbers in official proceedings anyway.

Armchair: You are either naively or willfully simplifying this particular part of the case as simply repeating an expert's testimony without knowing the truth. The allegation (with evidence to support it) is that they did, in fact, know the truth.

[Josh R]

As David said, that's a factual matter that is correct for a jury to pass judgment on and will strongly depend on whether Gells can reasonably be viewed as an expert and how Giuliani vetted Gells' opinion.

[David Nieporent]

The Geels report (that's the correct spelling of his name) reflects exactly the sort of shoddy work that the other "experts" utilized by the Kraken litigators provided:

1) Not understanding the law.
2) Half-assed analysis.

As to the first: the biggest possible error identified by Geels was 305,701 absentee ballots that were requested "too soon" — that is, more than the 180 days before the election that Georgia law provides. To Geels, that showed that there were issues "requiring further examination." Trump followed up on that in the Raffensperger phone call, mentioning "We have at least 2 or 3 — anywhere from 250-300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls." But Geels was unaware that — contrary to his claim that there were only "narrow exceptions" to that rule — in fact everyone over the age of 65 could have a standing order for an absentee ballot. (Also disabled voters and military/overseas voters.)

As to the second, his 10k "dead voters" calculation was based on crude pattern matching of first name, last name, and birth year. But that's not reliable — there are lots of duplicates. If you do the math of the number of duplicates and the death rate, you'll see that this entire category can be explained by false matches. To be fair to Geels, he caveats this finding, saying that there "may be false positives" and "the data reviewed is not specific enough to draw definitive conclusions about the voting population contained therein." Trump, of course, turned it into an absolute statement, and refused to back down even after Raffensperger said that they investigated and there were not 10k, or 5k, but two such dead voters.

[Randal]

What are you even saying? Areas may be unclear but in which facts are asserted but might be future-inaccurate are then criminalized? Yeah, that is a big problem. A big, fat, linguistic problem. Huh?

If the wife is found at the bottom of the river chained to a cement block, and the husband has a receipt for the cement block in his pocket, that doesn’t mean cement blocks and receipts have been “criminalized.”

[not guilty]

The claim that the statutes under which Donald Trump is charged criminalize free speech is specious. The constitutional freedom for speech and press extends no immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949).

Here, as in Giboney:

It is true that the agreements and course of conduct here were, as in most instances, brought about through speaking or writing. But it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed. . . . Such an expansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties of speech and press would make it practically impossible ever to enforce laws against agreements in restraint of trade, as well as many other agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society.

336 U.S., at 502 [citations omitted]. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951):

The defense of freedom of speech or press has often been raised in conspiracy cases, because, whether committed by Communists, by businessmen, or by common criminals, it usually consists of words written or spoken, evidenced by letters, conversations, speeches or documents. Communication is the essence of every conspiracy, for only by it can common purpose and concert of action be brought about or be proved.

Id., at 575 (Jackson, J., concurring in judgment).

[Nige]

Lol this is the inverse of all the proof of voter fraud that was going to hit the courts thanks to team kraken.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot thinks Kraken are an NHL Team

[Sarcastr0]

Prof Somin provides a sufficiently objective analysis that some conclusions come out on either side of the issue.

To AL, this is an alien concept so he assumes it is surrender or something.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Somin has enough bias in regards to Trump, that if he sees something wrong, there's REALLY something wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

He is able to be objective enough to see concerns cutting both ways.

You, on the other hand, are not one to speak of bias. You are so biased you choose ignorance over understanding legal concepts that might be bad for Trump.

As I said you can’t understand having the self possession to do analysis or advocacy for other than the short term outcome.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Tell me again how if Biden got a personal $10,000,000 gift from China while VP, that's not impeachment worthy....

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In which months of 2017 was Joe Biden the US Vice President?

Just checking, because the only references I've seen to "$10m" and Joe Biden relate to emails and WhatsApp texts sent long after January 21, 2017.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, and that’s the current Jaw-Jaw Flag, adopted in 2003 after a statewide referendum, which ironically (Jaw-Jaw is nothing but Ironic) more resembles the original Confederate Flag, than the supposedly race-ist “1956” Flag (which was replaced with an interim Flag from 2001-2003 that had TWO Confederate Flags (very small in size, but there nevertheless)

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The long list of crimes Somin is referring to are a bunch of felonious tweets and illegal room reservations.

Good grief you people are caricatures.

[David Nieporent]

That is not the list of crimes. That is a list of overt acts.

[Frank Drackman]

“Overt Acts”??
You watch “Law & Order too??” Seriously, you’re about as much a lawyer as Jackie Chiles I mean Jackie Chan

Frank “Denny Crane!”

[Randal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overt_act

[CindyF]

If Trump can be indicted for conspiracy for his tweets and allegations that the 2020 election was won by Biden due to fraud, then it should be a slam dunk to indict HRClinton for her part in producing and promoting the Steele documents used to accuse Trump of winning the 2016 election by “collusion”.

Clinton, her attorneys, Steele, the Ohr’s, FBI agents (including the love-birds), and several government employees, plus the then President and Vice-President were all in that conspiracy. I want to see all of them indicted for conspiracy and fraud as well.

Now THAT was a real conspiracy which resulted in a political fraud being pushed on our nation and investigated for almost the entirety of Trump’s presidency.

I can’t believe Somin is treating the Georgia indictment as anything other than the political prosecution it obviously is and has been since day one. Under Fani Willis’ standards, we can now charge several politicians and their attorneys with conspiracy and fraud during every election cycle. But I want to start with HRC.

[Nige]

'then it should be a slam dunk'

Trump's DOJ didn't manage it, Durham didn't manage it, and Trump's civil case came a cropper, too, so, no, in fact it isn't a slam dunk at all

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot has moment of clarity, coincidentally at peak of Perseids Meteor Activity.

[Michael Ejercito]

Durham was under the impression the old rules were still in force.

Someone as creative as Jack Smith could have brought indictments against the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton), Obama, FJB, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, and others.

[Nige]

Durham should have made stuff up! Oh, wait, he did! But it was made up, so he could hardly take it to court!

[Gandydancer]

Nige attempts drive-by fact invention, we all watch him fall on his face again.

Durham made WHAT up?

[Nige]

Everything in his report not supported by evidence. Which was a surprising amount, for an official report.

[David Nieporent]

If Trump can be indicted for conspiracy for his tweets and allegations that the 2020 election was won by Biden due to fraud,

If CindyF is too stupid to read, then can she sue her teachers for educational malpractice?

What illegal conduct was the object of the "conspiracy" supposedly involving "Clinton, her attorneys, Steele, the Ohr’s, FBI agents (including the love-birds), and several government employees, plus the then President and Vice-President"?

[Randal]

Don't you feel bad for CindyF? I feel bad for CindyF. What a rotten life.

[Frank Drackman]

You know it, you know that fat fuck probably costs $1,000/month just in Watermelon/Fried Chicken.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, you need to think logically at what $1000 in fried chicken and watermelon would be in terms of volume...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't you feel bad for Randal? I feel bad for Randal. What a rotten life.

And I am quite serious about Hobbes....

[Randal]

Aw, that’s sweet Ed. You don’t need to worry about me though!

Hobbes? Oh, your civil war fantasy. You still haven’t adequately explained what the civil war is gonna be about. What’s the modern equivalent of slavery that would actually get people off their sofas?

[Michael Ejercito]

I will write this.

For the first two years, despite by opposition to the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign, I did not know that anyone either in the Clinton campaign, the Special Counsel's team, or the network broadcast and print media, had actually committed any crimes, let alone that the whole thing was a criminal conspiracy.

The first published indication that I am aware of was an accusation, first made in 2018, that the Clinton campaign actually paid for the Steele dosser and hid it by categorizing it as a legal expense. In 2019, accusations first surfaced that Kevin Clinesmith actually altered an e-mail sent to the FISA court to get a warrant on Carter Page (an act that clearly is evidence tampering)

The Clinton Campaign settled with the FEC, and Clinesmith plead guilty.

There is, of course, probable cause that there was a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2016 election, given these unlawful acts used to further this campaign.

[Randal]

You think there was a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election before the election? That's really an amazing crime, for Hillary to have gone back in time to try to overturn her own election in advance. And then, she failed to do so! With a time machine! That's really rough.

[Josh R]

The dossier can't be part of a conspiracy to steal an election because Clinton conceded. Now, had she followed up the dossier with pressuring state officials/Biden/DOJ and created fake electors, then you've got your conspiracy.

[Michael Ejercito]

Did Hillary Clinton at any time after she conceded the election claim that the 2016 election was stolen?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hillary threw the Steele Dossier in the trash…McCain handed it to his fellow Bush Republicans in the FBI. Have you ever heard of Hillsdale College?? The FBI agent that initiated Crossfire Hurricane graduated from Hillsdale…now it’s time that you transform into a moron and pretend that Hillsdale is a liberal college just like the Federalist pretended that Instapundit is a liberal journalist.

[Randal]

Hell yeah, she wrote a fucking book about it!

But you know what she never did? Claim to have won.

[Gandydancer]

Hillary Clinton: “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.”

I guess she wasn’t talking about 2016. Just, you know, general possibilities.

[Martinned]

Here she is conceding the election: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgoNjQ

[Nige]

Yes, she was cautioning other based on her experience.

[Randal]

Stolen doesn't mean actually won.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, whatever. Go for it and prosecute Hillary. I couldn't care less if she spent the rest of her life in jail. In fact, I refused to vote for her even when her opponent was Trump.

But we all know why this is suddenly so important for you to discuss...

[Michael Ejercito]

Tampering with evidence.

Hiding the source of funds for the Steele dossier.

[Sarcastr0]

Evidence of not a crime is not evidence.

Again, you are so angry at 2016 even if the outcome was one you liked that you think it was okay to try and overturn the will of the voters in 2020?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if you assume there's no conspiracy, nothing can be a predicate act even if it IS a crime.

If you assume there IS a conspiracy, anything can be a predicate act, even if it's perfectly legal.

Funny how that works.

Suppose a prosecutor really wanted to nail Hillary's hide to the wall, and didn't give a damn if his case was strong. You think he couldn't have whipped up a conspiracy charge where Hillary was the puppet master behind the fake Russia investigations that hobbled the Trump administration? At which point her fraud concerning the Steele dossier is great fodder for prosecution.

Predicate acts that ARE crimes are all over the place, then.

[Sarcastr0]

Inchoate crimes are criminal law 101. They long tested and are not this uncabinned everyone is a criminal thing you claim.
Below, loki explains the elements.

[Nige]

'Funny how that works.'

Is it, though? Really? The difference between a conspiracy and no conspiracy?

[Michael Ejercito]

There were at least two crimes perpetrated to further the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign.

Under the old rules, there is at most probable cause that this was a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by Hillary Clinton.

[Nige]

Payback! is the new voltage!

[Michael Ejercito]

We need payback against these villains at any and all costs!

[Martinned]

I can’t believe Somin is treating the Georgia indictment as anything other than the political prosecution it obviously is

Yes, I can't believe that all those Georgia republicans are working with the democrats to prosecute Trump! Does tribal loyalty mean nothing to people anymore?

[Internet sloth]

Apparently it's too ironic for Trump to say the charges are trumped-up.

[Frank Drackman]

I know he's been dying for the last 20 years, but why wasn't Jimmuh Cartuh Indicted for this (besides the fact he's Jimmuh Cartuh and has been dying for the last 20 years)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/politics/jimmy-carter-trump-russia-interference/index.html
I know the Statue of Limitation's left the building with Elvis, but why not charge Jimmuh in 2019? he'd only been dying 16 years then.

Frank

[not guilty]

What federal statute(s) do you suggest that Jimmy Carter violated, Frank? Please be specific.

As for the statute of limitations, the CNN article you link to is dated Friday, June 28, 2019. It reports statements that Carter made on "Friday," to which Donald Trump was asked to react to Carter during a Saturday news conference. That suggests that the Friday on which Carter commented was June 21, 2019. If there was any crime, the five year statute of limitations has not yet expired.

[Frank Drackman]

Federal Statues Jimmuh Cartuh violated??
OK, I-ANAL, but whatever the one is that covers sucking Yassar Arafat's cock, Oh, and this beauty.

https://hotair.com/bryan/2007/11/07/jimmy-carter-cat-slayer-n150880

yeah, Jimmuh Cartuh killed his neighbor's Cat with a pellet gun, I think maybe that's why J-Hey is torturing him by letting him live forever with 5 different "Terminal" Diseases.

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why didn't Trump prosecute Carter in 2019?

Why are you asking us?

[Gozer the Gozarian]

This case needs to play out. There is no doubt that this is politically motivated, it's an open secret. The cases need to play out.

Why would Trump accept the results of the election? Hillary "Sore Loser" Clinton called him illegitimate and rejected the election results in 2016. Trump was dogged incessantly by the Democrats for being a Russian plant. Lest we forget RussiaGate and the clear and overt lies that Adam Schiff ejaculated every time a camera was shoved in his face. Then, he was impeached for asking the Ukraine to look into the corrupt Biden family. We now know that there are significant questionable events surrounding the Biden family and their interactions with the Ukraine.

The margin of victory in a few states was very small percentage win for Biden. After going through Hillary's rhetoric, Schiff's rhetoric, and Pelosi's rhetoric, a rational person may have had reason to question the election results. There is clear evidence of a political conspiracy against Trump from the moment he won the election through the 2020 election. This may be the best way to demonstrate "intent".

I hate to say it, but Trump was a victim. Yes, he dug that grave for himself, but there are many folks who actively and knowingly lied to specifically tarnish the credibility of the president (looking at you, Schiff). And of course there is Nancy Pelosi. Her incessant nagging and the toxic nature of her rhetoric will come back to bite her in the ass.

Of course Trump didn't accept the election results. He was given many reasons to be skeptical by the political establishment. That is key to establishing intent. Trump may be able to thank the Democrats for not only getting him re-elected in 2024, but also exonerating him from any crimes due to intent.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, that actually made sense. Prepare to be accused of sleeping with your Dead Brother's (Hot) Widow.
C'mon (Man!) are you Hunter Biden???

Frank

[Gozer the Gozarian]

It's easier to convince the jury of his intent than to defend the case on its merits. You have a good chance of a hung jury, or an acquittal.

I say this from experience. I once sat for a jury in Paterson, NJ. The perp was accused of possession, selling and distributing drugs in a school zone. When we went to deliberate, nearly all of us except for one person thought the perp was guilty on all charges. I will never forget the one juror reminding us over and over of the threshold we needed to meet to secure a guilty vote: beyond a reasonable doubt.

She said over and over, "if you have one doubt, you can't choose guilty. How many of you have not one doubt about the case against this person?"

Needless to say, all we could agree on was possession. She saved this guy from other charges. I will never forget that moment, and the impact was significant to me.

You just need to convince one juror to derail the government's case. I've been in a jury where it happened with far better evidence than what is being brought up against Trump.

Charges are meaningless. Persuasion of the jury is the most important thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And her underage daughter. Don't forget that.

[Nige]

'Hillary “Sore Loser” Clinton called him illegitimate and rejected the election results in 2016.'

No she didn't. The rest is a bunch of lies, too.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot doing the Robot E-gypt-ian into Denial. OK, this is from the Pubic Broadcasting System, so why am I even citing it? (well I do like the opportunity to use “Pubic” in a sentence)https://trendingpolitics.com/hillary-clinton-claims-she-won-the-216-election/

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well thats different, she didn't tweet about it. Did she?

[myself]

Wow...

That's the basis of the claim?

Clinton: “So maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again,”

Did it occur to you that she simply misspoke? Like she meant to say something like "Obviously, I can beat him if I ran again." Or "Obviously, I was beating him for most of the contest so I can beat him again.".

I mean you have a single out-of-context phrase expressing a sentiment she not only never repeated again, but she repeatedly contradicted. Who do you think you're convincing?

[Gandydancer]

Hillary Clinton: “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.”

I guess she wasn’t talking utter nonsense about her own experience in 2016, eh? Just raising general possibilities apropos of nothing?

[Nige]

Sure, why not?

[myself]

Russian interference, political meddling by the head of the FBI, I think it's fair for her to complain about it being stolen.

But again, I don't see anything about her claiming to have actually won, outside of standard recounts Clinton never disputed the actual vote totals. And she certainly didn't engage in a conspiracy to ignore the will of voters and get herself installed as President against the will of voters.

[Gozer the Gozarian]

Spot on! Lies from Hillary. Lies from Schiff. Lies form Schumer. Lies from Pelosi.

I wonder if it will create a constitutional crisis for Trump's legal team to depose Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi to get them on the record that their rhetoric was all lies. Could Trump's defense team claim that he would not receive a fair trial without their depositions under oath?

There are so many ways Trump's lawyers can complicate this and make his political opponents look stupid. That works very well to his advantage in his court challenges as well as the election.

Democrats are just plain stupid. You do not give Trump more media time. He will outmaneuver you. He may suck at many things, but he is a brilliant marketer. Bad press is good press for Trump.

[Josh R]

What works in the primary may not work in the general.

[Frank Drackman]

You're right, RFK Jr could win in the General in 0-24, Senescent Joe won't, mostly because by November 2024 he'll be Decomposing Joe (Please, No Threats!, No knowledge of Threats! No knowledge of knowledge of threats! (but playing the Perry Mason Murder Mystery Game, who would have the most to gain from a Senescent Joe "Transitioning" to Decomposing Joe? Well Duh, Common-Law Harris-Willie-Brown, and Calvin Loathsome.)
Just a country doctor who's seen lots of 80 year old Parkinson's patients.

Frank

[Gozer the Gozarian]

Trump's support is increasing while Biden's is decreasing. Seems like it's working to Trump's advantage. It always will.

If the Democrats had ignored Trump and censored him in the media, they wouldn't have a problem. But they are a bunch of dolts and here we are.

The Democrats will elect Trump in 2024 at they rate they are going. Nearly everything the Democrats have accused Trump of has turned out to be a lie. Independent voters are aware of this. Now we have all of these cases against Trump specifically to ensure he won't become president. Do the Democrats realize that the American public is smart enough to see through this ruse? When Trump espouses that there are conspiracies against him, and over time they are revealed to be false and drummed up by his political opponents, don't the Democrats realize that it gives Trump's accusations credibility?

Full discloser: Ove the past 15 years I have not voted for a Democrat or Republican for president. All of the options have been abysmal. I am definitely NOT a Trump supporter, but I am an adamant supporter of the rule of law and the equal application of the law to all peoples. Except that the reality is that there are two systems of justice in this country, and we all have a front seat to see the absolute worst examples of this between Trump and Hunter Biden.

[Josh R]

Trump’s support is increasing while Biden’s is decreasing.

Citation for the general?

[Frank Drackman]

Ask President Hilary Rodman Clinton

[Michael Ejercito]

Stephen Michael Stirling posted a link to the poll on his Facebook page.

[Josh R]

Link, please.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump's support is rising among Republicans, due to them rallying around him. I haven't seen any movement in the Trump vs Biden polls.

The problem is, Biden didn't beat Trump in 2020. Trump beat Trump, essentially: He was so hated by everybody on the left that he drove a massive increase in Democratic turnout. Democrats would have voted for a department store manikin to keep Trump for being reelected. For all practical purposes they DID vote for a department store manikin!

Biden decaying does not change that dynamic. Trump being tried for dozens of felonies only turns it up to 11. Democrats would crawl across broken glass in a nuclear firestorm to vote for anybody but Trump.

Will Republicans be pissed off enough about Trump being subject to massive lawfare to turn out in unprecedented numbers next year? I've got my doubts, it's going to be a real turnoff for people who think, "Yeah, he's being persecuted, but he's a guilty guy being persecuted."

They're not going to vote for Biden, but they might just leave that line on the ballot empty.

So, no, I'm not optimistic about 2024 if Trump is the nominee. And that's not even getting into the way he seems to not be learning from his mistakes.

[Nige]

Plus everybody who voted against him knows he wants to invalidate their votes, and will do so if given a chance.

[David Nieporent]

I wonder if it will create a constitutional crisis for Trump’s legal team to depose Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi to get them on the record that their rhetoric was all lies. Could Trump’s defense team claim that he would not receive a fair trial without their depositions under oath?

Under what provision of what law would Trump's legal team be entitled to depose Hillary, Schiff, Schumer or Pelosi?

[bevis the lumberjack]

They think that because something they believe to be similar happened before and nobody went to prison means that it’s unfair for Trump to be accused today.

Just like the stuff with Hawaii in 1960 relative to the fake electors in 2020.

That argument would demand that no murderers can’t be arrested in 2023 because of OJ Simpson, but I doubt they’d go for that.

[Josh R]

Good point, but in addition in this case what came before isn't similar.

[Michael Ejercito]

That argument would demand that no murderers can’t be arrested in 2023 because of OJ Simpson, but I doubt they’d go for that

His defense team did not argue that it was legal for him to stab two people in the absence of mitigating circumstances.

Regarding the 1960 Hawaii precedent, there were an alternate slate of electors. And there were absolutely zero people on record who stated that either these alternate electors, or the JFK campaign, committed a crime in providing an alternate slate of electors.

[Josh R]

They didn't commit a crime because a judge ruled the electors could go forward (even after the safe harbor date) while a legitimate recount was being finished.

[Nige]

Yes, the difference is they didn't commit any crimes.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure if that's the difference. Lot's of crimes were definitely committed in and around the 1960 election. But that's no excuse for anyone else's crimes.

[Nige]

Fair point. But so far nobody's identified anything criminal related to the electors.

[Gandydancer]

Indeed, nobody’s identified anything criminal related to Trump's 2020 alternate electors. That includes Somin. And you.

[Nige]

The indictments suggest otherwise.

[not guilty]

"I wonder if it will create a constitutional crisis for Trump’s legal team to depose Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi to get them on the record that their rhetoric was all lies. Could Trump’s defense team claim that he would not receive a fair trial without their depositions under oath?"

Depositions in criminal cases are governed by Fed.R.Crim.P. 15. https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2017-05/Criminal%20Rule%2015.%20Depositions.pdf A party may move that a prospective witness be deposed in order to preserve testimony for trial. The court may grant the motion because of exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice. Rule 15(a)(1). The scope and manner of the deposition examination and cross-examination must be the same as would be allowed during trial. Rule 15(e)(2). A criminal case deposition is not a discovery device.

Why would Team Trump want to preserve testimony of Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi for trial? What are the exceptional circumstances? Is any of them likely to be unavailable to the defense for testimony in person at trial?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hillary and Pelosi have serious health issues and might die (natural caused) before trial, let them prove otherwise. Pelosi also appears to have cognitive decline.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let me be clear here -- both women have documented health concerns, Pelosi's clearly observable cognition issues and Hillary having to be physically lifted into the limo by the USSS during her 2016 campaign. Absent an objective MD statement that these are all unfounded rumors, I think it is reasonable to presume the possibility that either woman may not be physically able to testify at trial.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pelosi isn't even competent to manage her personal affairs anymore, she gave her daughter power of attorney back in July to manage her affairs. THAT could be a serious issue if she's asked to testify about anything.

By contrast having to be lifted into a limo hardly means anything in terms of ability to testify.

[David Nieporent]

1) You have just confused Pelosi and Feinstein.

2) As I told you last time you brought this up, you don't understand the situation anyway.
a) She did not give her daughter power of attorney to manage her affairs; she gave her daughter power of attorney to handle one lawsuit in which they're jointly involved.
b) Giving someone power of attorney does not mean that one is not competent.

(As I also said last time, I think Feinstein should've retired yesterday, but that doesn't mean that you're describing the situation accurately.)

[not guilty]

What testimony of testimony of Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi would Trump's defense team want to preserve for trial? What do you posit that any of them could offer that would be exculpatory or helpful as to Trump?

[not guilty]

I commented above as to Fed.R.Crim.P. 15, which applies to the federal prosecutions of Donald Trump. The governing Georgia statute appears to set an even higher threshold. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-24/chapter-10/article-7/24-10-130#:~:text=(d)%20A%20motion%20to%20take,shall%20have%20jurisdiction%20to%20hear

Gozer the Gozarian, if you were drafting a motion to depose Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi in Georgia, what facts would you include to show that the testimony of each witness is material to the case? Please be specific.

[Nige]

'that their rhetoric was all lies.'

Good luck. Claims that people are lying by you lot rarely stand up to scrutiny, especially under oath.

'but he is a brilliant marketer.'

He marketed the hell out of the Big Lie. Now everyone who voted against him knows he wants to invalidate their vote.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think he meant, "he is a brilliant self-promoter".

Trump's endorsements in 2022 were the kiss of death...

[Josh R]

Of course Trump didn’t accept the election results. He was given many reasons to be skeptical by the political establishment. That is key to establishing intent.

Or, his best legal defense is that he is a petulant man-child who is unable to accept defeat. That won't work for Rudy and the rest for whom it will be easier to show they knew Trump lost but were doing his bidding.

[Gozer the Gozarian]

Do you have to do a Google search to come up with these delusions or do they come to you naturally?

[David Nieporent]

Clinton called him illegitimate and rejected the election results in 2016.

Clinton conceded immediately in 2016.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Nige-bot, I understand Robot-School has different rules, but we Humans are required to "Show your Work"
I know that "45" says he called Hillary Rodman and she congratulated "Them" on "Their" Victory (I think "45" thought "they" meant the whole MAGA movement, but........)
But please show documentation of her Concession Speech, you know, the ones losing Human candidates make?? Because all I can find is...https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Hilary+clinton+claims+she+won&docid=603523379926824982&mid=3F8DC62C507B6CB479ED3F8DC62C507B6CB479ED&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Frank

[David Nieporent]

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501425243/watch-live-hillary-clinton-concedes-presidential-race-to-donald-trump#:~:text=for%20all%20Americans.%22-,%22This%20is%20not%20the%20outcome%20we%20wanted%20or%20worked%20so,Yorker%20Hotel%20in%20Midtown%20Manhattan.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezus, you really never have played Chess have you? (Hey, my Mom grew up In E. Germany, she grew up playing Chess, I grew up playing Chess) You just fell into my trap (First Rule of Chess, OK there’s like a Hundred “First Rules of Chess”) “When you don’t know who the Sucker is, it’s you” (OK, more applicable with Poker..) So if she conceded the day after.

WHYTHEFUCKDIDSHESAYITWASSTOLENLATER!?!?!?!?!?

Sorry, Cranky/Ass-hololic Frank there.

Yeah, she said the Erection was Stolen (Hilary Rodman’s had a long history of Stolen Erections)

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

Very good point?

[Randal]

Because whining that your election was stolen isn't at all the same as claiming to have won it?

Losers always say the election was stolen for one reason or another... the lines were too long, the debates were unfair, a third-party candidate named Perot split the vote, an ad was defamatory and mean about some sort of fast ships, my Alaskan VP choice turned out to be retarded, Comey told everyone I was basically a criminal... but no matter how many ways the election was stolen and the winner therefore illegitimate, the actual results of the actual voting were honored and the loser conceded... until Trump.

Hillary never said she won the vote, only that she should've won the vote if only Trump hadn't been so mean.

[Josh R]

You can even falsely claim you won it so long as you don’t act on that claim and attempt to change the outcome.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They were trying to get electors to change their votes.

Hollywood even did a big campaign

[Randal]

Are you a total 'tard?

Trying to get people to change their voted is called advocacy.

How have you all gotten so stupid that you can't tell advocacy from racketeering?

(Some states allow their electors to vote their conscience.)

[Michael Ejercito]

They were trying to change the outcome.

And it was legal.

[Randal]

There are lots of ways to try to change the outcome that are legal. Campaigning. Get-out-the-vote efforts. Recounts. Legal challenges. Faithless electors. Fraud.

Oh wait not that last one. That's one of the illegal ways.

[David Nieporent]

They were not trying to get electors to change their votes; they were trying to get electors to cast their votes for Hillary. In most states that is entirely legal.

[Brett Bellmore]

To the end of falsifying the election results, and as we keep being reminded, the individual acts pursuing an illegal end don't, themselves, have to be illegal.

[Sarcastr0]

It was all in the open, so falsifying election results is a laughable charge.

[David Nieporent]

To the end of falsifying the election results,

That would not be "falsifying" anything.

The so-called Hamilton Elector effort was not to get new people appointed as electors even though those new people had lost the election; it was to get the actual winners to cast their ballots a different way than expected.

[Michael Ejercito]

John Podesta sought to change the outcome.

[Josh R]

As I said in an earlier thread, I buy that if it were combined with the myriad of other efforts that Trump tried. But, it wasn't.

[Nige]

In fairness to Clinton, she said she got blindisded by social media, which is hardly a controversial point.

[Don Nico]

David,
Those two statements are not necessarily in conflict

[Randal]

Calling him illegitimate and conceding I agree are compatible.

But "rejecting the election results" and "conceding" are pretty much opposites.

[Randal]

I hate to say it, but Trump was a victim.

Oh the lolz. Thank you.

[myself]

Why would Trump accept the results of the election?

It's not about him accepting the results of the election, it's about him illegally conspiring to change the results of the election.

Then, he was impeached for asking the Ukraine

You mean extorting.

And of course there is Nancy Pelosi. Her incessant nagging and the toxic nature of her rhetoric will come back to bite her in the ass.

You just can't help a bit of casual sexism.

[Michael Ejercito]

It’s not about him accepting the results of the election, it’s about him illegally conspiring to change the results of the election.

Illegallty how?>

Bribery?

Threats of criminal violence?

Perjury?

Paying someone to create a fake intelligence dossier, and then reporting it as a legal expense?

Tampering with evidence?

You mean extorting.

It is not extortion by any reasonable sense of the word.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn’t read the DC indictment either and spouted off based on some shit right wing list as I recall.

Read the indictment, you lazy propagandist.

[Frank Drackman]

For those of you with Senescent Joe 5 second attention spans, here's the "Money Shot" from the Jimmuh Cartuh Interview.

“There’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election. And I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf,”

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The first statement is backed up by the findings in the bipartisan Senate report (among many other sources): it's just a fact that Russia interfered in the election on Trump's behalf (if not invitation). The only question is how effective it was.

The second and third statements are simply his opinion about what a "fully investigated" election interference investigation would show. I disagree with Jimmy C. on those points. I'm happy to believe that Trump won in 2016, and that there was insufficient election interference or fraud to have changed the outcome. Hillary was just that odious a candidate.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is everyone here amd in the news reporting the grand jury returned indictments when that's impossible?

They know that's impossible since it's a Special Grand Jury with only investigative powers.

If they know that the grand jury didn't return an indictment but are fraudulently claiming so to corruptly harm Trumps campaign, are they committing felonies?

Somin and not guilty and all these others are willfully speaking democracy harming lies are committing a fraud felony crime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Please, drop it, I'm going to get a closed head injury from the face palming if you don't.

The special grand jury was LAST YEAR. It issued its report and was dissolved back in January.

This was a different grand jury!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oh okay, thanks I was conflating the two.

But since it wasn't intentional I avoided committing a felony, so *WHEW* Had I know they weren't the same and still made the comment I could wind up in some DC J6 Gulag for life and some Jamacain Judge screaming how I worship a man who should be behind bars at me like she did Nanna and Pawpaw.

[Randal]

Oh, wouldn't that be nice! You could put your Static Cling on your fellow felons instead of us.

[not guilty]

Why is everyone here amd in the news reporting the grand jury returned indictments when that’s impossible?

They know that’s impossible since it’s a Special Grand Jury with only investigative powers.

Is that as true as everything else you have said, BCD?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey not guilty when I was informed I was conflating the facts, I expressed my gratitude.

Wouldn’t it be nice if you had half as much integrity? Also don't pretend I didn't catch you in a bald faced deranged lie, huh Mr. Self Defense Suicide By Cop?

lol oopsie doodles

[not guilty]

BCD, some of us investigate facts before posting comments. Try it sometime.

George Washington couldn't tell a lie.
Donald Trump cannot tell the truth.
BravoCharlieDelta cannot tell the difference.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Lol stop lying. Wow, have you no shame?

[not guilty]

BCD, being accused by you of having no shame is akin to being called ugly by a bullfrog.

[Josh R]

The MAGA world keeps making the same mistake when they analogize to Clinton (and others) who accused Trump of colluding with Russia in 2016 and claiming the election as a result was illegitimate.

That's an expression of an opinion, no different than expressing the opinion that 2020 was rigged against Trump by dead people voting, etc. The difference is Trump then attempted to steal the election by pressuring state officials/DOJ/Pence and creating fake electors. Had Trump done none of this after spouting his conspiracy theories, he would be in the clear. And likewise had Clinton done what Trump did instead of just spouting conspiracy theories, she'd be in deep shit.

[Gozer the Gozarian]

"The difference is Trump then attempted to steal the election by pressuring state officials/DOJ/Pence and creating fake electors."

You just convicted Trump without a trial. Well done!

[Josh R]

Are you contesting that Trump tried to steal the election?

[Gozer the Gozarian]

Yes.

The evidence has not been presented to a jury. It has not been argued in court. And there have been no legal decisions on the matter to date as it relates to Trump and the charges presented against him.

In the United States, you are presumed innocent at the start of your trial. You seem to have forgotten that or refuse to accept that's the way the court system works.

[Josh R]

Forget about court and whether a crime was committed. Do you think Trump tried to steal the election?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No. He tried to fight back against the fraud we all saw go on.

[Gozer the Gozarian]

No.

If Trump was trying to steal the election, he sucked ass at it. He is significantly more conniving than what he displayed when he was "trying to steal the election". He is a billionaire real estate investor with assets across the globe. You get very savvy at beating the system and doing things that may be very questionable when you get to that level.

Trump's attempt at stealing the election should be viewed as the most incompetent thing he's ever done.

Steal it? No. Try to preserve his presidency for another term out of desperation and under the delusion it was a conspiracy against him? Very likely.

[Josh R]

Try to preserve his presidency for another term out of desperation and under the delusion it was a conspiracy against him?

That's another way of saying he tried to steal the election (you don't need intent, a delusion suffices - forgetting about the legal case).

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought Democrats patented "how to steal an election". Did the patent expire?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Poor Bumble. Nobody will play with him.

[jb]

Trump sucked ass at basically everything in his Presidency (see: getting rid of the ACA, wall, infrastructure week). I'm not sure why you think he'd be good at this.

[Frank Drackman]

He got rid of the Unaffordable Care Act?? funny, I keep getting Emails from "Healthcare.gov" telling me how great it is.
and the "Wall" I don't get it, I thought he didn't build the wall? you wanted him to build the wall? But hey, thank god Parkinsonian Joe was (literally) erected into the Oval Orifice and they finally came up with a Covid shot, no way an idiot like "45" could get that done.

Seriously, are you Trig Palin??

Frank

[jb]

We'll award you a big "woosh!" on this one.

Indeed, he did not actually do any of the things I mentioned despite promising to do so because he was really bad at being President, which was my whole point.

[David Nieporent]

Trump’s attempt at stealing the election should be viewed as the most incompetent thing he’s ever done.

The string of bankruptcies to his name may call your ranking scheme into question.

[Frank Drackman]

Now I know you’re not a Shyster. Bankruptcies have nothing to do with whether your successfull or not (None myself, at first I was too poor to go bankrupt, now I’m too rich) seem to recall going Bankrupt made it easier for a business to get loans. And if it is a bad thing President “No Comment”‘s run up more debt in 2+ years than every previous POTUS in 230

Frank

[not guilty]

"The evidence has not been presented to a jury. It has not been argued in court. And there have been no legal decisions on the matter to date as it relates to Trump and the charges presented against him."

Not true. In a detailed opinion regarding the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, United States District Judge David Carter on March 28, 2022 opined, "Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0_10.pdf p. 36. The judge further opined, "Based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021." Id., at 40.

Granted, these findings were made in a civil lawsuit brought by John Eastman in which the standard of proof was a preponderance of evidence rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applicable to criminal prosecutions. It is inaccurate to say, though, that "there have been no legal decisions on the matter to date as it relates to Trump and the charges presented against him."

[myself]

Good point.

You should explain that to Gozer the Gozarian because he's been talking about the "corrupt Biden family" when Hunter Biden is the only member of that family to have been charged with anything.

And he has not been convicted.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think we're well beyond the point at which "good points" are in any way relevant here.

[Frank Drackman]

You can't steal something you already won, see the OJ case.
OK, maybe not the best example, but like the great Sony Bono said,
"This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles. We're stealing it back."
that's all "45" was doing, Senescent Joe (OK, Senescent Joe doesn't know anything, his numerous lackeys) stole the 2020 erection, "45" was just "stealing it back"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBL-gVSJp2I

Frank

[David Nieporent]

You just convicted Trump without a trial. Well done!

No, he expressed an opinion about Trump.

[Nige]

'You just convicted Trump'

Did he? Is Trump in jail now? In solitary? For ever and ever?

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, imagine if Hillary Rodman Clinton had classified Information on an unsecured home server!!!!!!!!!

[Josh R]

Or Pence had classified information at his house.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, I am glad they didn't hang him.

[Josh R]

... he said as he didn't comment on the common treatment of Clinton and Pence, which blows out of the water the theory that Clinton got special treatment.

[Frank Drackman]

She did get "Special" treatment (Like Hunter "I fucked my dead brothers Widow, and my bastard daughter had to take me to court to get me to pay child support" Biden) in the sense that "45" knew charging her was a losing ish-yew, and anyway, Attorney General Comey said she didn't do anything worth prosecuting.

Frank "and that's the Truth, Pffttt!"

[Gozer the Gozarian]

Let’s break the Hillary server situation down. It’s damning in its swampiness.

When the server was discovered, what did Hillary do? Her first legal maneuver, which was a lie, was that the server was only used by her and Bill for family things. Why did she say this? Because husband/wife conversations are protected. Well, that defense fell apart for her quickly.

Secondly, she then sent the contents of the server to her attorneys. Why? It was an attempt to secure it under attorney-client privilege. That collapsed quickly once it was determined that there was secret information on that server.

The contents of the server were never handed over to anyone for forensic evaluation to see if it was compromised or any other very important details. Her attorneys only handed over emails, the entire server was intentionally kept away from anyone to ensure no one would ever know what was on that server.

Then, every single person who was involved with that server was asked to be deposed by the FBI but they WERE ALL GRANTED IMMUNITY!!!

The server administrator intentional violated a Congressional subpoena, erased, and then secure-erased the servers and destroyed all backups. He too was given immunity for making statements to the FBI.

I have worked in IT for over 35 years in various regulated entities such as financial and pharmaceutical firms. If I had done what that IT server administrator did, I would be in federal prison for at least 25 years. The “rest of us” go to jail for the things that Hillary and her ilk did. I know this because I have to navigate the regulatory compliance every day. It’s one of the reasons that I think the whole email server thing was a travesty of justice, and it played out in front of the public.

Hillary was guilty. Hence her posturing and eventual destruction of evidence that could have jeopardized her and most likely her entire family.

But you’re okay with this.

[Josh R]

I'm OK with Comey's investigation concluding there was no intent of wrongdoing. You are free to believe in the nonsense you just spouted.

[Gozer the Gozarian]

Jesus, you are a partisan hack with no respect for the rule of law.

You are the problem.

[Josh R]

The partisan hacks are those who think Comey is part of the Deep State out to get Trump.

[Gozer the Gozarian]

I said nothing about Comey.

But you demonstrated through your comments on this article that you are a card-carrying partisan hack with no respect for the rule of law. I stand by my assessment that you are part of the problem.

[Josh R]

All I said was I accept Comey's conclusions. Why is doing so an act of partisan hackery instead a reasonable position based on the investigation of an impartial man?

[Gozer the Gozarian]

"You are free to believe in the nonsense you just spouted."

You forgot that part, hack. I challenge you to refute what I wrote with something other than delusional rhetoric.

[Josh R]

Your claims establish intent. Comey concluded otherwise. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to characterize your claims as nonsense thanks to the investigation of an impartial man.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Comey stole federal documents and gave them to his friend Benjamin Whittes to leak.

Comey also orchestrated the meeting to disclose the Trump dossier to Trump and leaked the meeting to CNN to get the dossier out into the public zeitgeist.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And Comey is a Bush Republican whose firing prompted the Mueller investigation…Trump is a clown!!

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't realize FBI directors had prosecutorial powers. Guess I'm forgetting all of the previous indictments filed by FBI directors.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well Frank, if a Federal Elite makes an assertion, well it might as well come from God's own mouth for Josh here.

[Michael Ejercito]

So you are a complete sucker.

[David Nieporent]

I have worked in IT for over 35 years

Then maybe you should stick to opining on IT issues, rather than legal issues, because your legal analysis is terrible.

[Frank Drackman]

Opinions are like assholes, Asshole, because your legal Anal-lysis sounds like what you'd get if you bred a Kennedy and a Biden, had them smoke crack for 20 years, and then waited until they were 80, in other words, like our current POTUS.

Frank

[myself]

The contents of the server were never handed over to anyone for forensic evaluation to see if it was compromised or any other very important details. Her attorneys only handed over emails, the entire server was intentionally kept away from anyone to ensure no one would ever know what was on that server.

In other words, they did exactly what they were supposed to up until that point.

Find the government records and send those to the government.

The server administrator intentional violated a Congressional subpoena, erased, and then secure-erased the servers and destroyed all backups. He too was given immunity for making statements to the FBI.

That's a fancy way of saying he had been instructed (legally and properly) to delete all the emails a long time ago... and didn't do his job.

He then illegally carried out the deletion after the subpoena showed up for stuff we was already supposed to have deleted.

I have worked in IT for over 35 years in various regulated entities such as financial and pharmaceutical firms. If I had done what that IT server administrator did, I would be in federal prison for at least 25 years. The “rest of us” go to jail for the things that Hillary and her ilk did. I know this because I have to navigate the regulatory compliance every day. It’s one of the reasons that I think the whole email server thing was a travesty of justice, and it played out in front of the public.

So you're presumably also aware that those regulated firms make it a practice to do things like automatically delete emails they aren't legally required to keep after a period so that they don't later get subpoenaed and potentially get them in trouble.

Exactly what Clinton (and her lawyers) instructed the IT guy to do.

Hillary was guilty. Hence her posturing and eventual destruction of evidence that could have jeopardized her and most likely her entire family.

So if one of your subordinates didn't do their job, and then tried to cover their ass (and not let you find out) by doing something illegal, should you go to jail as well?

[Brett Bellmore]

“In other words, they did exactly what they were supposed to up until that point.”

No, actually. The extant rules at the time DID allow you to use a private email address for government business, but only if you configured it to copy all emails to the government system, so that they could be properly archived for data preservation purposes, just as if you’d been using the government system.

She didn’t do this. One might even say that not doing this was the only explicable reason for having a private server; That’s a hell of a lot of work to go to in order to have lower reliability and less security, but the one thing having a private server in your own physical possession does do, that no other alternative offers you, is the ability to wipe the hard drive AFTER a subpoena has been issued for it.

She picked the one email option that would allow the crime she did commit, and that’s darned good evidence of premeditation.

[Nige]

And this is the guy who claims it's plausible that Trump really believed that he won the election.

[David Nieporent]

No, actually. The extant rules at the time DID allow you to use a private email address for government business, but only if you configured it to copy all emails to the government system, so that they could be properly archived for data preservation purposes, just as if you’d been using the government system.

That isn't even a correct statement of the law now, let alone at the time Hillary was in office. The law now is that employees must either copy the emails to their official accounts or forward the emails within 20 days. But that was enacted in November 2014; Hillary left office in 2013.

but the one thing having a private server in your own physical possession does do, that no other alternative offers you, is the ability to wipe the hard drive AFTER a subpoena has been issued for it.

Once again: no subpoena was issued for her hard drive. You should really STFU about the topic until you actually read the subpoena.

[Michael Ejercito]

Pressuring officials is no crime.

alternate electors were not considered a crime in 1960, and no statute adopted by Congress since then criminalized it.

[Josh R]

Pressuring officials to change an outcome you know is legitimate is a crime.

[not guilty]

Pressuring officials is no crime.

alternate electors were not considered a crime in 1960, and no statute adopted by Congress since then criminalized it.

Au contraire. Corruptly attempting to obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding of Congress, as well as conspiring to do so, are criminalized by 18 U.S. Code § 1512, subsections (c)(2) and (k), enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

[Michael Ejercito]

How does that apply to alternate electors?

[Randal]

Don't you think fradulent electors are attempting to influence an official meeting of Congress? I do.

[Michael Ejercito]

What statute defines alternate electors are corrupt?

Given the historical background of Sarbanes-Oxley, it is implausible it applied to criminalize the practice of alternate electors, which was only not a crime in 1960, but was expressly sanctioned by a judge!

[Randal]

Alternate electors aren't illegal. Fraudulent electors are illegal.

You guys seem to have serious cognitive problems with simple concepts when Trump is involved. It's a sign you're in a cult.

Here's something that might make more sense to you. When a Black person crawls through a window of your house, it's illegal. When they crawl through a window of their own house, it's legal. They just locked themselves out. Crawling through windows itself isn't inherently legal or illegal. It depends on the context.

That how all crimes work. Now you know!

[Michael Ejercito]

So they actually had fake ID's with the names of the actual named electors?

[Randal]

No. They were intended to get counted even though Trump hadn't won the state.

[Michael Ejercito]

As did the alternate slate of electors in 1960.

[Randal]

Lie.

[not guilty]

“Alternate electors” is a legal fiction. Someone claiming to be an elector without having followed the procedures specified in the Electoral Count Act, as it existed on January 6, 2021, is a liar and a criminal.

(The Electoral Count Act was amended in December 2022. The procedures prior to amendment can be found at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12 .)

The governor of each state was required by federal law “as soon as practicable” after the “final ascertainment” of the appointment of the electors, or “as soon as practicable” after the “final determination of any controversy or contest” concerning such election under its statutory procedure for election contests, to send to the Archivist of the United States by registered mail and under state seal, “a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed,” including the names and numbers of votes for each person for whose appointment as elector any votes were given (3 U.S.C. §6)

After the electors have voted in each state, they were required to make and sign six certificates of their votes containing two distinct lists, one being the votes for President and the other the votes for Vice President. The law instructed the electors to attach to these lists a certificate furnished to them by the governor; to seal those certificates and to certify on them that these are all of the votes for President and Vice President; and then to send one certificate to the President of the Senate, and two certificates to the secretary of state of their state (one to be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate). On the day after their meeting, the electors were to forward by registered mail two of the certificates to the Archivist of the United States (one to be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate), and one to the federal judge in the district where the electors have assembled (3 U.S.C. §§9,10,11).

At the first meeting of Congress, the Archivist of the United States was required to transmit to the two houses every certificate received from the governors of the states (3 U.S.C. §6).

Absent certification by the governor and transmission by the Archivist of the certificate received from the governor, there was no authority for any elector’s vote to be counted.

“Stop the steal” was the Big Lie of November 2020 to January of 2021. “Alternate electors” is the same kind of Big Lie.

[Frank Drackman]

Love how the Marxist Stream Media is in a tither over how a Jaw-Jaw "45" (we don't use that "other" name in Jaw-Jaw) trial would have "Camera's in the Courtroom"!!!
Yeah, right, so the whole nation can see the Legal Genii of the Fulton County District Attorney's Office. See, I live there, so I get to watch all the time, but for first time viewers, you didn't stumble into a 1950's "Amos & Andy" rerun, this is one of the more recent Extra-Points they've effed up. (and the link references another murder case overturned, it's like a friggin Roosh-un Nesting Doll...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/us/claud-tex-mciver-wife-murder-conviction-overturned-georgia-supreme-court/index.html

Frank

[Jerry B.]

They probably have a whole list of Democratic State Attorney Generals lined up to seek their own indictments of Trump if the current ones fall through. At least until the 2024 election.

[Martinned]

Must be inconvenient when you've committed so many crimes that you can't even keep track of all the jurisdictions that might want to prosecute you.

[Frank Drackman]

Like it must be inconvenient when your wife's fucked so many guys you can't even keep track of all the juris-dick-ins she might have fucked guys in. Thought this was a legal blog. Let me know when "45" gets convicted of something.

Frank

[grb]

Why all this wild anger from the Trump cultists in these comments? It’s because Trump won’t get away with it. See, that’s always been one of the two founts of MAGA bliss.

First (obviously) is his entertainment value, because politics for today’s Right is purely an entertainment consumer product. But second to that (and allied with it) is that Trump could get away with anything. Boorish behavior, brat-child acting-out, crude lying and a lifelong history of sleazy scams or outright fraud – yet Trump walked away every time without consequence. That alone made the cultists dizzy with happiness.

He tried to shake down the president of Ukraine for personal gain, but suffered no lasting impact. His administration was a cesspool of influence peddling, conflicts of interest, and ignoring ethical restraint for sport, yet he never bothered hiding the corruption. Trump brazenly tried to steal an election using the crudest of tactics, always confident he was beyond the reach of law. Seeing that, the MAGA faithful swooned with joy.

To them, Trump is the image of a perfect being : Beyond the restraint of propriety, decency, or honesty. Freed from constrictions of law, reason, logic or fact. Proudly stupid. Proudly shameless. Proudly contemptuous of the rules others follow.

But now? Jail time. No wonder our Right-types shriek with anguish and rage…

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I’m already planning on selling some Trump mugshot schwag.

Nelson Mandela, that black chick on that bus, Cheech and Chong, and other sorts of icons and legends have suffered under the boot of the State.

This is going to make him a legend.

[David Nieporent]

First (obviously) is his entertainment value, because politics for today’s Right is purely an entertainment consumer product.

Yep; look how they keep bragging about ticket sales and ratings for Trump events, as if any of that has anything to do with anything.

[Frank Drackman]

You're right, not like people showing up matters in Presidential Erections (certainly didn't in 2020, how's Sleepy going to win in 0-24 when all those Dead peoples have to show up in person? (OK, just fine in ATL and PHI, but overall?)

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

People showing up matters as much as voting.

IOW it doesn't. Not with the Ruby Freemans of the world counting ballots in secret and then getting Presidential medals for it.

[David Nieporent]

Careful; Rudy Giuliani is about to go into bankruptcy for saying that. Of course, you're a nobody so I doubt she'd bother to sue you.

[Frank Drackman]

Rudy spends more money on condoms than you did on your house. (Hey, or my house, Rudy's a "Man of the People", but he's also a "Man" if you get my drift*)

Frank
* and had the Prostrate "Big Casino", man I wish I had his Urologist.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

She did count ballots in secret after they lied to the poll watchers about halting counting though.

That's a fact.

[David Nieporent]

If by "fact" you mean lie, sure. Never happened. As Georgia's GOP governor and secretary of state have explained repeatedly.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Jesus. You’re complaining about influence peddling with Trump? A cesspool?

Please define for us what types of influence peddling define a cesspool and when it’s “nothing to see here”.

Trump is guilty of a whole bunch of that shit but your double standards render your judgement of his guilt not credible.

[grb]

How about two billion dollars from the Saudis? You’re act is getting a bit tired, Bevis. You love to whine about double standards, but only given a subject you’re comfortable with. Otherwise you’ve got those blinders shut tight.

Every week of every year there was worldwide Trump Organization business going on inside the White House and yet you never gave the slightest shit. The day Trump became president, Mar-a-Largo doubled its membership fees and anyone who ponied-up could pitch to the president. You never cared. The Saudis want to lobby against a law in Washington? They bought 500 rooms in the DC Trump hotel. But there weren’t week & weeks of stories about that as with little Hunter Biden. People barely noticed. You certainly didn’t.

The government of Qatar thought the U.S. position on their feud with the Saudis was caused by their refusal to provide business funding to Jared Kushner. I don’t know if that’s true or false, but it’s a damn sight more credible than the bullshit you’ve produced on Joe Biden so far. Not that credibility is an issue with you.

Let’s talk Turkey. Trump said this :

“I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump said in 2015. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two,”

So did that make a difference when Trump threw U.S. foreign policy into panic by stabbing our Kurdish allies in the back? No one can say for certain, but this isn’t a theory formed by faux-whistleblowers, transparent spin, and the forever deferred promise of a big reveal yet to come.

I can produce a dozen fact-based reports about entanglements between the Trump Administration and special interests while you tell your handful of stories about Hunter’s money-grubbing ways. Then produce a new dozen while you repeat those Hunter stories again. Then produce a new dozen while you parrot a third round.

Hell, I don’t even need to raise the ugly record of Trump appointees for the first five or six rounds..

[grb]

Here’s a really funny one for you free of charge, Bevis :

Remember when people were astounded by Trump’s enthusiastic praise of Putin during the ’16 campaign? No one then knew Trump was secretly negotiating a massive business deal with Kremlin officials. The talks continued right up to the eve of the election. Trump Org officials discussed greasing the deal with a Putin bribe. He was to be gifted the choicest penthouse suite.

So when Trump wildly gushed over Putin, it was with these secret negotiations in mind. Right during the election season. As he campaigned for President of the United States.

As the song goes:

Takin’ care of business, every day. Takin’ care of business, every way.

[Nige]

Seriously, why is there such a reluctance to have some sort of full reckoning and accounting for the sleaze in Trump’s White House? Is the scope just too enormous? Is there no offical venue for a proper investgation? That aren't controlled by Republicans? Or is there one ongoing in the background somewhere? Why aren’t Trump and Kushner and Co testifying before committees full time?

[Martinned]

Fortunately Trump is going to give a Major News Conference in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Monday to completely exonerate himself wrt this Georgia case. Apparently there will be a “large, complex, detailed, but irrefutable” report...

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4153153-trump-claims-report-will-result-in-complete-exoneration-in-georgia/

[David Nieporent]

…that he has inexplicably concealed for the past 3 years.

[Frank Drackman]

Great! so why are you worried?
OK, besides the fact that you're a little man, in a little house, who supposedly has a little law degree (HT Reverand Kirkland) and handles little cases?
Oh, and has a little (Redacted)
and maybe having a name that doesn't translate as "Never Potent" (Names usually start from some notable characteristic)

Frank

[SimonP]

A transparent attempt to shift the media narrative. It'll be a joy when the morons here start cherry-picking from whatever they release and drop tidbits here. More homework for the sane people to debunk.

It makes me wonder if Trump is hurting for a lack of propaganda assistance from the Russians, this go around. What with the Wagner Group management shake-up, and the whole Ukrainian war occupying Putin's attention, perhaps Putin isn't as focused on running interference for Trump as he was in 2016.

[Martinned]

I'm just amused at the thought of "writes with crayons" guy producing a "large, complex, detailed" report. Also, I know that the press conference is at some kind of Trump spa & resort, but the name of Bedminster, New Jersey is giving me distinct Four Seasons Total Landscaping flashbacks.

[loki13]

I am quite sure that there will be large stacks of papers!

(An aside- I remember when I was a young litigator there was an older litigator who just ... well, I could tell that they made things up. Anyway, I was at a hearing, and they had a giant stack of papers. At one point, they told the judge that this stack was all the "precedent" that supported their position, which I knew he was making up. So I objected and said that I hadn't had the chance to review the cases, and asked to review them. The Judge agreed and told opposing counsel to provide copies, or show me the cases. After a brief pause, opposing counsel said that he may have misspoke, and misplaced all of that precedent. ... the hearing didn't go very well for him after that. Which is a long way to say that, generally, this is why Trump's bullpuckery works well on the rubes, but usually doesn't work very well in a court.)

[SRG2]

The Supreme Court is quite capable of distinguishing a Trump appeal from "Gamble" and indeed, any other precedent, so let's see how robust the defence of dual sovereignty will be. You'd think that Thomas, as a states' rights man, would keep it, but if he does perhaps Ginni won't be nice to him.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Act 156 from that Affirmative Action DA:

“by unlawfully “decertifying the Election, or whatever the correct legal remedy is, and announce the true winner”.

LOL Trump asserting to do whatever the correct legal remedy is PROOF he was trying to illegally do the legal thing!!

You fucking deranged idiots really fell for this one. You should’ve known it was going to be a trainwreck just by looking at and listening to the people doing the trainwrecking.

Serious legal jeopardy guys! They got him cold admitting he wanted to do the proper legal remedy FELONIOUSLY!

[hoppy025]

The only thing she's qualified to do is eat a banana while swinging in a jungle from tree to tree.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is telling that Prof. Volokh occasionally dips into the comments to respond to a fan, but never expresses any concern or object to the rampant racism, gay-bashing, and other forms of bigotry found at his blog every day.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your old-timey, ugly thinking could carry anyone in an America that has moved past right-wingers and their failed thinking.

[Frank Drackman]

That actually took several thousand years of Evil-lution to umm, Evil-ove. Ever try to eat a banana while swinging from a Vine?? just ask George of the Jungle.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=george+of+the+jungle+theme+youtube&view=detail&mid=8D8E11DF37A3A30AF4EF8D8E11DF37A3A30AF4EF&FORM=VIRE

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Feel free to say anything at all about this rampant bigotry at any time, Prof. Volokh!

Same for the other Volokh Conspirators -- does one of you have enough character to address the incessant bigotry at this blog?

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, “Coach” not sure why a Convicted Sex Offender would be commenting on a “Legal” blog, but you were a “Crackerjack” Defensive Coach (note to self, if a Coach ever asks you to go to his office for a “Box of Crackerjacks” politely decline) But, only 17 days until Penn State vs West Virginia, in State College, C’mon (Man!) you gotta have some opinions about that one….

Frank "SEC! SEC!"

[David Nieporent]

Utter-failure-in-life BCD calls someone else an "affirmative action" person.

Also, utter-failure-in-life BCD does not understand that indictments are not about "PROOF." They are accusations. The proof is for trial.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think a candidate asking the Secretary of State to pursue his legal remedies for a contested election is evidence of a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election fraudulently?

Yes or no.

[David Nieporent]

Since Trump knew that there was in fact no "legal remedy" or "contested election" (in a legal sense), no grounds to "decertify" anything and no lawful basis for any of it, yes. By itself it would not, of course, prove anything at all. But, of course, it's not by itself. And

If the state establishes that Trump knew he had lost and decided to engage in a multipronged attempt to get himself declared the winner anyway, and did so in agreement with others, then any act related to that, no matter how small or innocuous by itself, is sufficient. The purpose of the overt act requirement is to prevent the criminalization of pure talk, not to establish that the individual overt acts are especially bad.

[Mr. Bumble]

You'd better up your Valium or you won't make it to the election next year.

[Frank Drackman]

as the Not-Late, Great Judge Judy said about a million times,

"Don't tell me what (He/She/They) Knew!, that involves an operation of someone's mind that you cannot know, tell me what they Said, Did, etc"
Seriously? you're supposedly a Shyster and Judge Judy would throw you out on your ass.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

He's a well respected man:
And he likes his own backyard
And he likes his fags the best
'Cause he's better than the rest
And his own sweat smells the best
And he hopes to grab his fathers loot
When pater passes on

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you believe that asking for the correct legal remedy isn't suggestive that Trump thought he had a correct legal remedy?

Is when you couple it with his conspirators Tweets about wanting "fair elections" that it taints his motive?

What about the other acts, like "watch this public hearing!", or "make sure every legal vote counts"?

When you, David, put those fact patterns together you see a fraudulent conspiracy to overturn a knowingly lawful election?

[Josh R]

So you believe that asking for the correct legal remedy isn’t suggestive that Trump thought he had a correct legal remedy?

He may thought that in which case he is delusional. Or, he may know he lost and committed a crime. Either way, it ought to be disqualified for office. And Giuliani knew Trump lost. His tweet about "fair elections" and "legal votes" is an overt act to a crime.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

His tweet about “fair elections” and “legal votes” is an overt act to a crime.

lmao listen to yourself!

[Josh R]

"We must have free & fair elections in GA & a this is our only path to ensuring every legal vote is counted" is an overt act because 1) Guiliani knew Trump lost (i.e., the Tweet was an intentional lie), and 2) Guiliani followed the overt act by lying to state officials that Trump won.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey everybody,
heard you missed me, I'm back!
just like with our House and Senates of Sexual Congress,
"Kind & Gentle" Frank's on "Summer Recess"
"Cranky, Ass-hololic Frank" is filling in
please send any comments to Idontgiveafuck.com

Frank "Trig Palin? whatever happened to that Mongoloid?"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Bigot Is Back!

[hoppy025]

Have you been at least giving the boys you groom PrEP?

[Frank Drackman]

That's "Dr" Bigot thank you very little,
and I prefer the other "B-word"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNz9FgNEnI

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Apart from doing his part to "flood the zone", is there any point to his incessant gibbering?

Someone (obviously not Frank) please explain!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Somin deserves credit for addressing the most important legal issues of the day (and the week, month, and year).

Your character makes you better than this blog, Prof. Somin . . . your libertarian instincts and disdain for xenophobia and other forms of right-wing intolerance make you a poor fit with this faux libertarian blog, too.

You could easily find better professional playmates.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And if he does, I hope he tells us where it is.

Wading through the effluent at Reason and now Volokh is tedious.

[Mr. Bumble]

The comments on this and Somin's other post today is like watching a tennis match with all the same back and forth.
Four indictments. Which case is first to the post for a trial?
By the way, Meadows has filed to dismiss the case against him or to move it to federal court.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably Miami. The other 3 “Jurisdictions” (I guess the Monkey House at the Zoo is technically a “Jurisdiction”) run on

“CPT” I’d tell you what that means but then the Reverend Sandusky would want some private time with me. Let’s just say, the other 3 cases will be

“Shufflin’s threw’s the Courts” for quite some time.

Frank

[not guilty]

"Four indictments. Which case is first to the post for a trial?"

I expect that will be the D.C. trial. The Special Counsel has requested that jury selection take place in December of 2023, with trial to begin on January 2, 2024. We should know within two weeks. A pretrial conference is scheduled for August 28, 2023.

[ReaderY]

If you believe many of the commentators on this post, the Feds have been persecuting good law-abiding people for years. The Don does nothing more than express his personal opinion, as is evety American’s right, that things would be better if so-and-so were to dissappear. What could possibly be illegal about simply expressing an opinion? The soldier does nothing more than exercise his constitutional right to bear arms, and then he just moves his forefinger a little bit. What could possibly be wrong with that? Bearing arms is every bit as much a constitutional right as expressing an opinion. And so what if somebody moves his finger a little bit?

You wouldn’t believe the things these absurd indictments say. Murder! That’s right, murder! Murder conspiracy! All for just exercising ones first and second amendment rights just like any other citizen. Do these people, these crazy bungling messed-up feds, have anything better to do then to harrass honest citizens just because they happen to be Italian and happen to like to form clubs to help protect ordinary folk?

[Mr. Bumble]

Creative writing exercise?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

the Feds have been persecuting good law-abiding people for years

But dude, yes that's what they do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sometimes they even frame innocent people to protect murderers.

U.S. Told to Pay $101 Million for Framing 4 Men

[Don Nico]

Nice comment Y, but pick on some other ethnic group.
After all, you never know just how dangerous the highway is.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Or maybe the Don said, “Shoot the rat and dump his body in the river, or whatever the correct legal remedy is.” As BravoCharlieDelta will assure us, only a deranged person would think that this statement is evidence of a conspiracy to commit murder. After all, the Don explicitly asked for the correct legal remedy to be applied; how could that possibly be illegal?

[Mr. Hook]

“But some of the charges raise technical legal issues I prefer to leave to commentators with greater relevant expertise.”

“I am sure there are lots of newly minted RICO experts commenting away on Twitter and elsewhere. But I'm not going to pretend to be one of them, and so will have to leave this issue to others.”

“I will leave that to relevant experts, as well.”

“But this too is an issue best left to those with greater expertise.”

“I must defer to the assessment of commentators with greater expertise.”

I applaud Prof. Somin's trolling of all the Dunning–Kruger Law School graduates here.

[Frank Drackman]

You ever notice "RICO" was the gangster in "Little Ceasar"?? what a coincidence that the acronym for the law has the same name.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's a slur against Italians.

[Frank Drackman]

THERE IS NO MAFIA!!!!!! TONY SOPRANO WAS IN THE WASTE MANAGEMENT BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!! (as a MOTT my favorite Soprano's character was Hesh, man, when Tony stiffed him and did that "Da Rent! Da Rent!" Insult, he's lucky I wasn't there at Holsten's (Best Onion Rings in the State IMO), but of course Tony was a Boss, so maybe he gets a pass on that one.....

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

What the hell were you doing in Bloomfield NJ?

[not guilty]

"You ever notice 'RICO' was the gangster in 'Little Ceasar'?? what a coincidence that the acronym for the law has the same name."

It may not have been a coincidence. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rico-suave/

[SimonP]

I have a feeling Ilya is one of the few VCers who actually pays zero attention to the comments. If he saw the way they explode into idiocy, he might be inclined to post less (see, e.g., Orin's posting habits).

[mydisplayname]

The trivial minority's crusade against Donald Trump seems to be having the right effect. When Republicans were in 1994 asked (by Gallup) to evaluate President Clinton's ethics, 33% of such Republicans rated Clinton's ethics excellent or good. When Democrats were in 2018 asked to evaluate President Trump's ethics, 11% of such Democrats rated Trump's ethics as excellent or good. When Republicans were recently asked to evaluate President Biden's ethics, only 6% of such Republicans rated Biden's ethics as excellent or good. Actions like those in Georgia accrue to Biden's disadvantage.

Similarly, the perception that the minority is engaging in frivolous -- rather than productive -- behavior is up, even among those who self-identify as Democrats. In this instance, actions such as those in Georgia appear to accrue to the disadvantage of Congressional Democrats.

Justice is best served by allowing the zealots to speak: it isn't easy to create a martyr in the absence of an unjust, malevolent, and huffish bête noire.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A careful study of the DA's announcement reveals too much. That DA can't keep her duper's delight silent. Study the face carefully, you'll see the real truth behind this indictment.

https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/1691612088005693815

[Bored Lawyer]

I am sure there are lots of newly minted RICO experts commenting away on Twitter and elsewhere.

Before COVID, a certain federal judge, whom I generally like, had the practice of hearing multiple motions on the same afternoon. So we would show up and have to listen to 5 to 10 other cases before he got to us. And the criminal ones always went first.

One time, a criminal defendant was allocuting, which basically means plead guilty and go into factual detail about what he did. The defendant was a teenager, maybe 17. Had been in a drug gang. After describing what he did, judge asks the prosecutor, "anything else I need to ask him?" "Yes judge, ask him if he was a member of a RICO enterprise." Judge: "were you a member of a RICO enterprise?"
The kid had a look like, WTF did he say? His lawyer whispered in his ear, and he said, "Yes judge."

RICO is an enormously complex statute. How a jury can understand it is a mystery to me. Judges hate it. Query whether the prosecutor made a wise decision to include it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course this is the state statute which I would assume is somewhat different than the federal statute that started this thing called "RICO".

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

As I mentioned above, apparently the RICO statute in Georgia is pretty poorly defined in terms of factors that have to be present, and is used all the time by Georgia prosecutors.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey guys, fair warning. Don't go to X right now. There is all sorts of felonious illegal evidence of the 2020 steal flying around illegally harming our Sacred Democracies. Videos, newspaper clippings, camera footage, illegal interpretations of these, illegal thoughts being expressed and all kinds of other Anti-Democrat criminal activity. Someone even said, illegally so, that the DA was covering up the steal! Crime after crime after crime!

Please stay away or you might get indicted.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey if I say the election was stolen, do you think Biden will send the FBI to come and murder me too like they did that Utah crippled retiree?

[mydisplayname]

Biden probably wouldn't, unless paid by a Russian oligarch. "Charles McGonigal [the spearhead of the FBI Crossfire Hurricane probe which led to the impeachment of Donald Trump], by his own admission, betrayed his oath and actively concealed his illicit work at the bidding of a sanctioned Russian oligarch." https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-special-agent-charge-new-york-fbi-counterintelligence-division-pleads-guilty

[David Nieporent]

I love how you people just make shit up. McGonigal was not the "spearhead of" anything. All he did was forward an email.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, the whole time he was there, he forwarded one email, and otherwise was idle?

[Nige]

No, he was leaking all that stuff during the election to damage Clinton.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Any of you lawyers understand Georgia's legal power to fire its own prosecutor? Should we expect Georgia Republicans to give that a try? If they do it, is that where the buck stops? Can they get Trump and his conspirators off the hook that way? Or might the U.S. Justice Department take a critical interest in appearance of obstruction, and deprivation of civil rights?

[not guilty]

Some quick research turns up this: https://law.georgia.gov/resources/appointment-substitute-prosecutor#main-content

[not guilty]

Four district attorneys general recently filed suit seeking to enjoin the scheme. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23894810-boston-v-state-of-georgia-ful-co-sup-ct-final-complaint

I am still reading the complaint.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks for the link. I am glad the prosecutors have filed for an injunction. I doubt it will even slow Georgia Republicans in their lunge to prevent criminal prosecution for Trump in Georgia.

I am particularly concerned to learn what powers, if any, U.S. law would afford the Justice Department to say otherwise—and crucially, how quickly any such action, if the law does authorize it, could be enforced.

[ReaderY]

Given that prosecutorial discretion is a well-recognized right, and state sovereignty means states make their own decisions about whether to prosecute, what federal interest could there possibly be in how the state of Georgia selects its district attorneys or whether it chooses to prosecute this case or not?

I think Trump should be prosecuted. But you repeatedly advocate riding roughshod over well-established law to get at him.

That I don’t agree with. Not only that, I think the most likely outcome of your suggestions is to get prosecutions tossed out, and hence to help Trump rather than help any prosecution.

I don’t know Georgia law on state powers to dismiss elected DAs. But if it has to be for cause, there is an excellent argument that there is no good cause here. I would leave it at that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What law do I advocate riding roughshod over?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A Georgia Republican was on CNN the other day crowing about how this is how the GOP finally gets rid of Trump.

[Michael Ejercito]

They should give that a try.

[SimonP]

I can't speak to the legality of it, but I wonder if its hovering in the background is part of the reason Willis targeted a larger group of people (including Republican state officials) and range of crimes. It makes the criminal conspiracy look bigger, and deeper, so that removing her looks more clearly political (and corrupt).

[David Nieporent]

Or might the U.S. Justice Department take a critical interest in appearance of obstruction, and deprivation of civil rights?

No. This is incoherent. Whose civil rights do you think are being deprived in this hypothetical scenario?

[Stephen Lathrop]

No doubt, not being a lawyer, I must not be thinking like a lawyer. Your comment cautions me that there could be legal imprecision in my notion that people enjoy rights to have their votes count, and to be free of obstruction of justice by government action.

On the other hand, their is philosophical imprecision in any notion that the law—and the government officials who make the law—are properly empowered to constrain the sovereign People in their exercise of their constitutive voting power. Feel free to read my remark as a question whether the Justice Department speaks for the People, or for the government, in cases which put those parties in opposition.

[ReaderY]

Once more with a little more information.

The recently-enacted Georgia statute focuses on DAs who refuse to enforce laws the state wants enforced. Perhaps things like abortion, marijuana, adultery, stuff like that.

Since DAs are constitutional officers in Georgia, a state commission to review and remove them for categorically refusing to enforce state law might run afoul of the Georgia constitution. I’m not going to address the stage constitutional arguments. But I see no reason why it would present a federal concern.

Local disagreement with state policy has been around a long time. Prostitution was criminalized in many states only during World War I, more or less along with Prohibition. The populace of many localities strongly disagreed with both, and elected DAs who shared their views. State laws providing for removal of DAs or state takeover of local governments who refuse to enforce prostitution and alcohol laws have been around since at least then. And they’ve been evolving ever since. In the 1970s, the North Carolina legislature responded to the emerging gay rights movement by adding sodomy to the list of laws whose non-enforcement could trigger state takeover. It’s not surprising that after Dobbs, some states would choose to add abortion laws to their list.

There’s no federal problem with any of this. It’s up to each state whether it wants to grant local autonomy or make criminal law enforcement a matter of centralized state policy.

After all, the Federal system centralizes prosecutorial discretion along with other executive powers. Local US attorney prosecution decisions can be overridden by Justice Department higher-ups, and US attorneys are selected centrally and can be dismissed if they are thought non-comforming.

How could a system that’s perfectly constitutional for the federal government not be constitutional for a state? Georgia can have a completely central system, with its governor appointing all its district attorneys, if it wants to. Just like the federal system. Since nothing in the federal constitution prevents a completely central approach, nothing prevents a compromise hybrid approach with DAs elected locally but subject to central removal by state officials.

The Georgia statute appears to focus on failure to enforce laws, so any alleged overenforcement resulting from the Trump investigation would hardly seem likely to trigger it. The state could, however, potentially remove a liberal urban district attorney for failing to enforce laws against abortion, marijuana, adultery, and other controversial conservative state policies. Doing so would be no different constitutionally from when district attornies were removed for failing to enforce Prohibition a century ago.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What the recently enacted Georgia statute focuses on turns out to be a question up for grabs. Among those doing the grabbing may be quite a few who do not give a damn what the statute says, or what it meant prior to being amended to advance its implementation date into a time-frame where it could be used to quash Trump's prosecution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Georgia can have a completely central system, with its governor appointing all its district attorneys, if it wants to. Just like the federal system. Since nothing in the federal constitution prevents a completely central approach, nothing prevents a compromise hybrid approach with DAs elected locally but subject to central removal by state officials.

ReaderY, do you suppose that is a power Georgia government officials are properly empowered to enact? Or is that a determination properly made by the people of Georgia in their constitution, and thus beyond reach of legislative change?

Do you assert there is no federal legal interest in whether state constitutions are followed or not? Or, for that matter, in questions whether state constitutions can deprive state citizens of rights or powers reserved to them by the US Constitution?

[David Nieporent]

ReaderY, do you suppose that is a power Georgia government officials are properly empowered to enact?

Yes.

Or is that a determination properly made by the people of Georgia in their constitution, and thus beyond reach of legislative change?

No.

Do you assert there is no federal legal interest in whether state constitutions are followed or not?

Correct.

Or, for that matter, in questions whether state constitutions can deprive state citizens of rights or powers reserved to them by the US Constitution?

There is a federal interest in that.

What fantasy are you inventing about the Georgia constitution here?

[Bored Lawyer]

I have only seen second hand reports and have not yet had time to read the indictment.
One thing which strikes me is the number of defendants named. 19 defendants. And apparently many more unindicted co-conspirators. Are those charges solid? And is a trial with that many defendants even feasible?
So far, I have seen little discussion of this.
(This is one more example of how anyone who works for Trump will be royally screwed by his schemes.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"(This is one more example of how anyone who works for Trump will be royally screwed by his schemes.)"
More accurately screwed by the DOJ.

[Martinned]

The DOJ which is, in your mind, prosecuting this Georgia case?

[Mr. Bumble]

No the Florida and DC cases.

[Martinned]

So whose fault is it that Trump is being prosecuted in Georgia?

[jb]

No one else is being prosecuted in the DC case, so that's a pretty confusing take.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well there are at least two co-defendants in the FL case and of course you discount all of the people called as part of the various investigation who incurred various legal fees.

[jb]

Usually the word "and" implies that both cases would be relevant.

Also, probably you shouldn't help hide or destroy evidence in an FBI investigation regardless of whether you think the underlying conduct is illegal. Most people would probably end up in trouble for doing that, so unclear how you think the DOJ is screwing the codefendants in Florida (as opposed to Trump for telling them to do the very obviously illegal thing).

[loki13]

This is an interesting question, and I would defer to people that are more knowledgeable about criminal procedure for this.

It is my understanding that a major reason that the Feds chose not to indict the co-conspirators in the DC case was to simplify and streamline the case, but also to put Trump in a questionable position- after all, if he tries to call his attorneys to the stand to say that he relied on their advice because he's just a rube, they will plead the Fifth, which would look terrible for him.

On the other hand, these are state charges. Which means that, unlike the federal cases, Trump can't dangle the possibility of a pardon (no matter how unrealistic) in exchange for favorable testimony.

But I honestly have no idea; I would assume they'd want to sever the cases at some point?

Finally, I want to extend my best wishes to all of the judges in these cases. I do not envy the torrent of abuse they are likely to receive from the various morons and idiots out there. Even though I think Judge Aileen Cannon has consistently made ... terrible rulings, extend the same courtesy to her as well.

[Martinned]

My understanding (again second hand) is that the Georgia authorities want this case going with reasonable haste. They're envisaging empaneling a jury by the end of the year or something like that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good luck with that with 19 defendants. Pity the judge trying to schedule this. Meanwhile Jack Smith wants the Florida case to start in Dec and the trial to begin on Jan 2. Are the cases going to involve quantum entanglement?

[loki13]

Well, criminal cases are not civil cases. They will take precedence, and the various defendants will have to move their schedules to accommodate the trial- not the other way around.

So while Trump having multiple criminal cases against him will cause some issues with coordination of scheduling (excepting, of course, the one in Florida which ... I mean, whatever, right?), and Trump's habit is too delay everything as long as possible, those tactics which have worked so well in past civil cases will not work quite as well in a criminal action.

[Mr. Bumble]

So of the four (two federal,two state) which will take precedence?
Any chance that any would be dismissed or the state cases moved to federal court?

[loki13]

If I understand it correctly, Trump has a colorable argument that the action brought against him in the Georgia court can be removed to federal court, although the charges would remain the same. Again, not my area of expertise, and I say it's a colorable argument- I don't know enough to evaluate the competing claims made by people that know more than I do.

In terms of coordination, there is no default rule of precedence that I am aware of; only that courts should afford each other comity in terms of scheduling- in other words, as dates get set, other courts (through motions) will attempt to schedule around those.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for the response. I guess time will tell. Maybe we'll get an idea of how this will proceed with Meadows move to dismiss or move to federal court (reportedly already filed).

[not guilty]

Fani Willis has said she will seek to go to trial within six months. I will be very surprised if that happens.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

A Georgia appellate litigator interviewed on the Serious Trouble podcast said there was almost no chance this case would go to trial that quickly. He said 2 years was more likely.

[Martinned]

Speaking of co-conspirators, here is Mark Meadows's notice of removal: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23910305-markmeadows_removal?responsive=1&title=1

[loki13]

Somewhat related reporting-

The special counsel’s investigation into Donald Trump and the aftermath of the 2020 election sought the former president’s Twitter direct messages, of which there were many, federal prosecutors and lawyers for Twitter revealed in newly unsealed transcripts from February court hearings about the search warrant. [...]

A lawyer representing Twitter, now called “X,” similarly confirmed in court that Trump’s account had several private messages between users on the platform. “X” was able to find both the sent direct messages and deleted messages for prosecutors, according to the transcripts.

“We were able to determine that there was some volume in that for this account. There are confidential communications,” a lawyer for Twitter said about @realDonaldTrump’s direct messages.

So, apparently the guy that hated leaving a paper trail used his twitter account to DM people. And those DMs have been turned over. Not just the DMs, but the deleted DMs. And the draft messages as well.

I don't even know if it's incriminating, I just can't wait to see what shows up in evidence.

[Martinned]

It's almost as if Twitter doesn't respect the privacy of its users very much...

[loki13]

Ha ha! No. If you use Twitter (or X, or whatever cockamamie name Musk comes up with next), you need to know that they are keeping all that data, including your searches and your location and your drafts you never sent and deleted, and there is no E2E (end to end) encryption.

The only vaguely interesting thing is that Musk invoked the Trump rule and tried to oppose a lawful subpoena- that's not something Twitter does for any of its other users. Ever.

[Martinned]

Well, if you use Twitter outside the EU anyway.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/delete-twitter-dms-gdpr

[jb]

Twitter has historically been pretty good at pushing back on government requests for private user data, so from that perspective I think they've been the best of the major platforms. (I don't know to what extent this has changed under Musk, but the fact that they fought to inform Trump of the subpoena seemed consistent with their past behavior rather than special treatment for Trump.)

Having said that, if they could get at deleted messages (after more than a month or two) that's a pretty bad privacy practice. I think users reasonably expect that once they delete something no one should be able to get to those messages, and there's pretty solid engineering practices about how to do this.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, it should be interesting.

We'll get to see if Trump is as deranged in his private communications as he is in his public ones. (I suspect so!)

[not guilty]

Confidential communications on Twitter? The Twitter users' privilege is a new one on me.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey deboonkers, deboonk this video showing duplicate ballots that were counted in GA for 2020.

https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1691603642770399311

[SimonP]

Video doesn't show what you've claimed it shows, genius.

Some guy (no idea who he is, or why I should listen to him) points at a pdf on a computer screen. Says that the numbers in the file names mean something. Do I know he's telling the truth? That he knows what he's talking about? No.

Guy points at the images to illustrate that they have identical markings. Sure, I can see that. And?

What evidence do we have that these are actual scans of ballots that were counted? Some amateur-hour "journalist" taking video on her phone's say-so?

In any event, the time to bring these claims, and these challenges, was after the election. Prove it in court. If you can't manage that, then the rest of us are entitled to conclude that you don't have a case. We don't need to rebut every conspiratorial shaky-cam video you pull out of your ass to keep the fever-dream alive.

[loki13]

My personal belief- when someone repeatedly posts inaccurate, false, or (construed generously) misleading information, at a certain point it’s best just to put them on mute.

After all, time is a limited resource, and if a person isn’t amenable to basic concepts like “learning from their mistakes,” or “engaging in substantive conversations about legal issues on occasion,” then life is too short to have to read and correct their nonsense.

Except Ed. Because, well, that's just comedy gold. 🙂

[SimonP]

Well, BCD claims to have a 160 IQ, making this an exceptional opportunity to interact online with a rare genius. So I wouldn't want to rob myself of his intellect.

[loki13]

On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.

Any individual who has to loudly claim their intelligence or expertise because their writing doesn't evince the same, should be given a treat and a nice walk in the park.

[Martinned]

Some claims are conveniently self-revealing. No one who is actually intelligent thinks that IQ measures anything other than the ability to take IQ tests. Even Tyler Cowen published this on Marginal Revolution the other day: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/08/what-makes-for-a-good-royal-navy-senior-officer.html

[Voize]

what-makes-for-a-good-royal-navy-senior-officer

Gilbert and Sullivan answered that question for the army more than 140 years ago.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I only said I'd be in the 7th standard deviation had I been born black.

That's it. All the rest of this is made up garbage from a bunch of butthurt midwits.

[SimonP]

Fortunately, you said it only a couple of days ago, so it is not too hard to illustrate that you're not recalling it correctly here:

So I learned an interesting stat listening to an old Stone Choir podcast over the weekend.

There are about 330,000 other people at or around my IQ in the US.

However, if I had been born in Africa, I would only have about 1,300 peers on the entire continent!

Fascinating! I’d go from 4 standard deviations above the mean to 6! Crazy.

Can you see how many mistakes you've made, in the present account of your prior comment? Or do I have to highlight them for you?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If only you were half as skeptical about an indictment that was charging people for feloniously tweeting.

lol f'n idiots

[SimonP]

BCD - I am exactly as open-minded about the indictments as I am about your intelligence. I am willing to believe that you, at some point, took a properly-administered, valid and reliable intelligence test, and that it reported you had an IQ of 160. I am happy to concede that I have no way of refuting that possibility.

Unfortunately for you, I have far more evidence of your intelligence, as made evident in comments you've left here. Taken as a whole, they paint a rather puzzling picture of someone claiming to be highly intelligent but altogether unable to reason their way out of a wet paper bag.

The most charitable interpretation of this body of evidence is that your intelligence is just not to be found in your ability to express yourself clearly or to engage in logical or analytical reasoning. You may instead be talented in the engineering area, where you claim to have earned a terminal degree.

A less charitable interpretation, of course, would be that you're actually just a liar, perhaps even a pathological one. Given the... quality... of the views you've expressed here, I am inclined not to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't mean that I'm closed to the possibility that the charitable interpretation is the accurate one. Maybe if you were less of a sociopath, I'd more seriously entertain it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You:

“@realdonaldtrump We want free and fair elections!”
“@rudy every legal vote should count!”
“@realdonaldtrump Hey, watch the public hearings!”

THESE ILLEGAL TWEETS PROVE FELONIOUS FRAUD CONSPIRACY RICO SACRED DEMOCRACY

Me:

lol

P.S. And Global Warming!

[SimonP]

Other commenters, more patient than I am, have already explained that Trump is not on trial for these tweets.

[Michael Ejercito]

Do you think there were coded messages in those tweets?

[jb]

Whatever your IQ is, your reading comprehension really sucks.

[edbeau99]

After all this, I'm sure Ilya Somin will want to comment favourably on how the recent conviction of Alexei Navalny on extremism charges (very similar to what Trump is facing) broke new legal ground as well.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Although Wikipedia reveals he was born in the USSR, because he left at age 5, I doubt he would consider himself an expert on Russian criminal law, and would therefore probably refrain from any such comments.

But, you never know?

[DaveM]

Reading these comments makes me regret my decision to visit this website. What a waste of time and talent. Lawfare is the legal equivalent of pissing on the American flag.

Politics ruins EVERYTHING.

[Stephen Lathrop]

On the contrary. American constitutionalism prescribes politics as the means by which the jointly-sovereign American People manage the nation's public life. If politics lead to ruination, then what that shows is that the political practitioners are doing politics wrong.

For instance, the Justice Department is doing it wrong. Confronted with evidence of major political crimes, the Justice Department is quailing for fear of accusations that it engages in political prosecutions.

The right response to such accusations would be, "Of course this is a political prosecution, the conduct charged is a political crime. Political crimes cannot be properly prosecuted except in reference to the People's political prerogative to exercise its sovereign constitutive election power at pleasure, and without constraint by government."

The People constrain government by politics. Government, and government officials, are not properly empowered to constrain the People.

[Anthony Tye Rodrigues]

I have great respect for the intellectual abilities of Ilya Somin. But I am also struck by the fact that his legal reasoning is almost invariably overcome by his dislike of Trump. If he were more measured in this area, I would take more note of his opinion. Instead, when I see his name and Trump's linked in an article, I know what to expect, and on which side of the argument he will fall. It's rather sad, really.

[Daddyhill]

Trump cannot keep his mouth shut even when doing so would aid his defense. Why on earth would anyone (outside of MAGA I suppose) believe that if elected next year he would do anything except nursing his grievances and attacking those he regards as his enemies (it's only a witch hunt when he is the alleged target)? And after all, he could have spared himself and us the current mess we're in if he had simply done what all previous one-term presidents have done: concede defeat, graciously or otherwise, the day or week or month after the election. Then he could availed himself of all established methods for challenging the results in court(s).

By the way, I move that the expression "witch hunt" be retired from all public speech. It doesn't really mean anything anymore and dishonors those unfortunates who were made to suffer horribly during the era of the real thing.