Georgia starts investigation into Trump's election interference

Non-partisan analysis for those interested. In contrast, this offers a highly detailed analysis, not just a few paragraphs like a partisan blog. It’s definitely not the ‘we read it so you don’t have to’ kind of content.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-fulton-county-indictment-an-initial-examination


The Fulton County Indictment: An Initial Examination
Scott R. Anderson, Hadley Baker, Saraphin Dhanani, Hyemin Han, Quinta Jurecic, Yang Liu, Tyler McBrien, Natalie K. Orpett, Katherine Pompilio, Benjamin Wittes
Tuesday, August 15, 2023, 9:30 PM
Share On:Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
The document is unlike anything else pending against Trump in the scope of its allegations of criminality.


The indictment handed up on Monday by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia is a document of extraordinary ambition. Before we dive in, let us begin with a confession: We won’t know until District Attorney Fani Willis tries to take her case to trial whether it is a document touched by prosecutorial genius or a massive overreach. What we can say is that the indictment is unlike anything else pending against Trump in the scope of its allegations of criminality.

…

 

Federal indictments read really differently from Georgia indictments. The charge isn't an overreach if the law itself is broad. In Georgia, the law is very broad.

 

...and I think that's the overarching point in this.

The scale and scope of what was (allegedly) attempted by the Donald and all of these other people, is a heretofore unprecedented act (or series of acts, specifically, in furtherance of a single goal) in American history.

The presumed "overreach" of the law in this instance is, surprisingly enough to me, a direct result of the endeavor it cites as malfeasance.

It would seem daunting, on the surface of it all, to suggest that something so twisted as subverting the will of a democratic presidential election in this country, could be realistically attempted (let alone tread dreadfully close to succeeding, if not for individual courage and integrity from our eclectic voting processes across states)...

...yet still and again, to even make the attempt at such a thing is, in and of itself, an alarming circumstance that no one thought would ever come about... and thereby, in my estimation, would not ever need to be addressed.

...and another personal observation of mine: I have said elsewhere that it is particularly fitting that the comeuppance for this wickedness would act itself out in the one place where the Donald and his "team" felt they had the best opportunity to effect their scheme.

It is particularly fitting that the votes of Georgia were not supposed to go against the Donald in the presidential race (as they had not done for a generation or more).

It is fitting that the black poll workers were targeted and harassed and threatened for protecting the votes of white voters as well as black voters.

It is fitting that this specific attempt took place in Georgia and harkens back, essentially, to forcing Negroes to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to cast a vote that could be tossed aside in a fit of racist pique.

It is fitting that the person on the "wall", the last "protector" of what is supposed to be American "democracy", happens to be someone who was never supposed to be part of that democracy.

And it is fitting that it would have to be a black person who would have to make a charge so sweeping and broad, because we might be the only people in this country who could really know how far something like this actually reaches.

And why.

Karma's a b!tch, I hear.
(no offense, ladies)

 

Overreach which is why it is going to fail in a spectacular fashion, and Donald will have the last laugh.

 

Dear mrShakespeare00,

You have set yourself up for an enormous fail and disappointment.

Nevertheless, that was very well written and constructed (for me to p00p on).

 

I'm a law and order guy. So I was totally cool with Georgia RICO used to prosecute cheating teachers. Many liberals hated this and conservatives loved it. Now that the law is being used against Trumps false statements towards a state official undermining that official's duties or something (not many states have this law), I find it expectedly sad that there are so many hypocrits.

 

I actually don't think this would lead to a jury conviction because of the electoral makeup. Voir dire will determine a lot in all 4 trials. There are legitimate legal defenses in 3 of them. I actually think NY is a BS case. The docs case is actually the strongest case without a valid legal defense, so the Trump team better hope they can get a MAGA on the jury.

 

It would have been more spicy for this thread if U tag who u putting this forth for said poster doesn't spam/post more opinionated pieces/partisan blogs and give a response after reading it

 

related

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/08/how-crazy-are-liberals-2.php

How Crazy Are Liberals?
by John Hinderaker

(John Hinderaker)
We get a pretty good volume of hate mail from several directions. Sometimes we get threats, occasionally death threats. A couple of years ago, a guy emailed me to say that he was going to bring a gun to my office and murder me. I reported him to the local police, and also brought a gun of my own to the office for a week or two, just in case. That guy wasn’t a nut, he was a mainstream member of the Democratic Party who had a good job at a local utility.

We normally pay no attention to hate mail; in fact, such communications, if they get through our filters, generally hit the trash before I’m through the first sentence. But I got one this morning that I want to comment on, as it reflects where we are now as a society.

The sender took the trouble to look up my office address, and directed his email there. The sender popped up as “mlucky99,” but when I clicked on the address it came up as “glynch9999@gmail.com.” So I assume his name is George Lynch, Gerald Lynch, or something similar. Liberals like to be anonymous.

The subject heading was “You can’t erase history.” The email started out as though it came from a sane person:

You know I think a lot of Americans are pretty exhausted of Donald Trump and the drama and wish that he, his issues and all of the BS surrounding him would just go away.​

So far, so good. But it continued:

But even if he disappeared tomorrow, the fact that smart and accomplished “conservatives” became so damned intellectually dishonest to protect the leader of their cult of personality won’t go away. As they say “the internet is forever”.​

Well, I thought, he obviously doesn’t mean me. Commenters on my post on the Georgia indictment, which apparently triggered this communication, have excoriated me for not defending Trump more vociferously, and especially for saying I think he lost the 2020 election.

But Mr. Lynch continued:

You have joined that list with your latest defense of the man. He’s committed crimes in multiple jurisdictions and on multiple occasions but you cultists just can’t seem to admit it.​

Hopefully the juries will shut your ****ing mouths for good.

So now I am a Trump “cultist.” Take that, Trump-fan commenters! And, reverting to form, Mr. Lynch can’t get through five sentences without foaming at the mouth and launching an F-bomb. A typical liberal.

I have never understood why so many people are obsessed by Donald Trump, either for him or against him. In my opinion, he is not one of the 20 most interesting people on the political scene. And, apart from anything else, I do not under any circumstances want to see another 80+ year old president. And yet, in the eyes of this (admittedly demented) member of the Democratic Party, I am a Trump “cultist.” Because, based on my 41 years as a lawyer, I said the Georgia indictment does not plausibly allege any actual crimes on Trump’s part.

Some people say that Donald Trump has broken our politics, driving people insane on both the Left and the Right, but I don’t believe it. I think those people, like Mr. Lynch, were crazy already.
​

 

Spectacular it will be

 

Yick but so true for someone so polarizing

 

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2023/08/17/when-the-prosecution-wants-speedy-trials/

When The Prosecution Wants Speedy Trials
by SHG
August 17, 2023

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis informed the court that she seeks a trial date in the Trump RICO case of March 4, 2024, which coincidentally is the day before Super Tuesday. Proposed trial dates in the other cases are peppered before and after, but all before the presidential election in November.

In the New York County “hush money” case, the proposed date is March 25, 2024. In Jack Smith documents case, it’s May 20, 2024. In the Smith J6 case, it’s January 2, 2024. In the Letitia James civil fraud case, it’s October 2, 2024, which Justice Arthur Engoron says is “written in stone.”

On the part of prosecutors, this rush to trial, a concern almost never seen from the prosecutorial side, is intended to get a verdict before the election, and certainly before the newly elected president takes office just in case. On the part of Trump and the handful of lawyers will to risk life and pocketbook by representing him, delay until after the election is key.

While most Americans who support these prosecutions desperately want these trials to move ahead with great haste, to see Trump convicted before anyone votes for president in the hope and expectation that his supporters will come to their senses and recognize that he’s not their savior, but a scoundrel, and thus not vote for him. Atop that hope, of course, is the hope of watching this narcissistic grifter get what he deserves.

Aside from the public’s desire of watching Trump convicted, however, is the fact that Trump is facing five trials, four of which are criminal, over the course of less than a year. No matter how strong the urge to see him lose, again and again and again and again, and again, he’s is entitled to the full panoply of due process rights that the Constitution guarantees every defendant. I know, principle sucks, but the thing about due process is that either every defendant gets it or none get it.

At the moment, Trump is represented in his cases by a few primary lawyers in small firms. The government has had as much time as it’s needed to do its investigation, gather its evidence, put the squeeze on recalcitrant witnesses and think long and hard about how it wants to proceed. Those few primary lawyers are now in the position of having to prepare their defense, make their motions, review their millions of pages of discovery, find their witnesses, prepare their witnesses, find them again after the FBI scares them off and try to convince them to testify no matter what nastiness the government threatened should they testify on Trump’s behalf

If Trump was facing one trial, it would be hard. Two would be monumental. But five? There is no way in hell that these lawyers can do a competent, no less zealous, job of preparing for trial within that time frame. And having Trump as a client, who is neither available to them when needed nor inclined to work with them as they advise him not to make hourly statements that will make an impossible job even more difficult, increases the difficulty by an order of magnitude, at least.

If the defense’s motive is to delay trial beyond the election in the hope that Trump will win, be elected president and then make at least some of these trials disappear, it’s unlikely to persuade any judge, Judge Cannon excepted, to be cooperative. It’s not that the defense isn’t allowed to devise whatever strategy is thinks will work, no matter how dubious and improper, but that doesn’t mean the judges have to play along.

However, there is a very legitimate claim to be argued that the proposed timing of these trials, both in the sense that they are very swift as well as serial such that there will be almost no time between them to prepare for the next. will deprive Trump of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. That right isn’t limited to having a lawyer stand next to a defendant, but also having a lawyer who has had the time to do the labor demanded of competent counsel.

One way around this problem would be for Trump to retain different lawyers for each case rather than use the same lawyers for multiple cases. This could also include using bigger firms with more staff and resources that could deal with the vast amount of discovery more quickly than a couple of guys with an office. However, another part of that Sixth Amendment right is for the defendant to be allowed to use counsel of choice, provided he can afford to (another big issue, but not one involved here). There is also the problem of big firms wanting nothing to do with Trump, as his reputation as a deadbeat precedes him together with his toxic connection costing firms paying clients.

It’s possible that Trump’s defense lawyers will be left with no choice but to proceed to trial, one after another, etc., because the court says so. And no doubt they will, and they will do whatever they can do zealously represent their client because that’s what lawyers are supposed to do. But the fact that prosecutors, MSNBC hosts and much of the public wants to see this move forward post haste doesn’t mean that the defendant’s constitutional rights have been protected.

It’s quite possible that the hoopla of quick, serial trials as currently proposed will ultimately end up being delayed so that the defense has a legit opportunity to review the discovery. A few million pages takes a bit of time both to review and think about. Trust me on this. If it turns out that one case goes to trial while the others are delayed in order to allow the defense the opportunity to adequately prepare, don’t be surprised. Indeed, it wouldn’t be surprisingly is none of these cases go to trial before the election, no matter how badly you want to see Trump walked out of the courtroom in leg irons. And before you blame Trump for this, consider the couple of years after the 2020 election when the government did pretty much nothing to move this forward. Justice delayed is justice denied. Or so they say.
​

​

 

Not really sure the point of this piece. Yes Trump is entitled to his Constitutional rights including due process and right to counsel. I don’t think anyone is denying that and the judges appear to be giving him more than generous leeway on those. The rest of the piece seems pretty contradictory. It notes that most of Trump’s problems are caused by himself such as that many larger law firms doesn’t want to work for him.

 

Yes that will Play a large role but I’m guessing the prosecutors are pretty good at voir dire. In these cases the judges are likely going to be extra careful about the jurors. Also we’ve seen other trials of where jurors with even a preexisting bias was able to be convinced. For example in the Manafort case there was a juror who admitted she was a Trump supporter and MAGA who still voted to convict. She said the evidence was just too strong to ignore.

 

Meanwhile trump already trying to incite the maga mobs...

 

No one surprised that a maga already threatened the Judge... or that the threat would have come from someone that looks like this...

 

And no surprise... its where trump has led his magas to...

 

At the hearing, court papers said, Ms. Shry’s father, Mark Shry, testified that she was a “nonviolent alcoholic” who “sits on her couch daily watching the news while drinking too many beers.”

After drinking, Mr. Shry told a judge in Texas, Ms. Shry often became “agitated by the news” and started “calling people and threatening them,” the papers said.

That b**** needs to get off the sofa and go to work, lazy ass Republicans waiting for a handout.

 

Looks like dershowitz is now newsmax legal analyst... his career is yet another victim of trumpism.