My ignorant WAG is that it takes a lot of time to get all of the I’s dotted and T’s crossed to not give the defense any wiggle room to claim invalid prosecution based on some technicality.
While I like Richard Wolf’s writings, your suggestion that he is the mirror image of Dick Cheney is spot-on.
They better not take too long, as the Statute of Limitations will become a factor. From this article:
Bolding mine.
The only reason a Manhattan/Brooklyn jury “would not fly” is if the alleged crime did not take place in Manhattan (Southern District of New York) or Brooklyn (Eastern District of New York).
Sixth Amendment,
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law […]
~Max
/me Sheepishly raises his hand.
God as my witness, I thought we didn’t need another connected Government Career person like Hilary. Hindsight being what it was, I swung back in 2020. If only 2020 me had been able to talk to 2016 me…but 2016 me wouldn’t have believed it.
Then there will be competing elector slates, from those states, sent to Kamala Harris by registered mail. The Democratic and Republican tellers will split on which to accept, and she will accept the slates chosen by the voters.
Trump may then be caught, off-mic, saying that Harris had the balls Pence didn’t. But it won’t be true. Instead she would have used an obscure feature of our democratic system to defend democracy.
Three of the Southern District counties (Sullivan, Orange, and Putnam) went for Trump.
Besides that, you can’t expect this to be a normal aggressive prosecution where the prosecutors shop for the jurisdiction with the most pro-prosecution jury pool possible. They will want there to be both the reality and appearance of nonpartisan fairness. So even if there are no Trumper Sullivan jurors on a normal lower Manhattan federal jury, I believe this would have one, just as it would have someone from the Bronx who voted for AOC. And such have already made up their minds on whether Trump is a criminal.
IANAL but I could make a strong case for:
18 USC 599 Promise of political appointment by candidate
18 USC 600 Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
18 USC 601 Deprivation of employment or other benefit for political contribution
18 USC 606 Intimidation to secure political contributions
18 USC 607 Place of Solicitation
18 USC 610 Coercion of Political Activity.
Just because he broke those laws openly and repeatedly and pretended those particular laws didn’t exist doesn’t mean that they don’t. And they should hit his corrupt cronies for violations of the Hatch Act.
That’s just for stuff he did while in office. I’m sure I could come up with more if I were a lawyer, or if I had more than 15 minutes this morning to research.
Then there’s the crimes he committed post-election.
18 USC 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection
18 USC 2384 - Seditious Conspiracy
18 USC 2385 -Advocating for the Overthrow of the US Government
18 USC 2389 -Recruiting for Service against the United States
I don’t think so. The GA voters may well vote for Biden, but the legislature will simply say “that can’t be right” and certify only the Republican electors for president. Then only one set of electors, the Republican set, gets set to DC. Harris will dutifully carry out her ceremonial function and those legislature-assigned electors will count.
Here’s a possible bit of good news. Full title that gets the critical bit cut off in link preview:
Georgia criminal probe into Trump’s attempts to overturn 2020 election quietly moves forward
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/politics/georgia-probe-trump-election/index.html
The key to any prosecution has got to be transparency. They need to have every little bit of the case out there in front of cameras for everyone to see. It is far more important that the public sees Trump as guilty than that the jury does. I would much rather have Trump be a free man in disgrace, then a heroic martyr in supermax.
With that in mind, I think leaning on the states to do the heavy lifting is probably for the best. Having the Biden Justice department lead the way is just going to further normalize the idea calling for your political rivals to be put in prison is just routine politics. Yes, it sucks that the wolf who cried wolf has successfully protected himself from the cries of others. But if we have reached the point that we have to choose between justice against Trump or trying to prevent the spread of his legacy. The latter if far more important than the former.
These statutes are probably unconstitutional in light of Brown v. Hartlage , 456 U.S. 45 (1982).
~Max
This isn’t clear. While its okay under the first amendment for candidate to tell voters who he is going to appoint in order to get them to vote for him, it still isn’t okay for a candidate to promise a position to someone as part of a quid pro quo exchange for an endorsement.
It’s no disgrace to have been acquitted. Acquittals should be respected. So should the results of court cases where there is a hung jury.
Trump has, in my mind, behaved disgracefully many times. But a court case in which he is acquitted, or where there is hung jury with little prospect for a different verdict in a repeat trial, would not be yet another.
Now, being convicted – that disgraces a person.
The Georgia legislature, through a bill signed by the governor, or through a veto override, has the right to, before a presidential election, cancel that part of the election, and pick the electors themselves. However, if they keep the presidential race on the ballot – which they would – and then take that away because of not liking the result, the legislature just passed an ex post facto law. And ex post facto laws are forbidden by both the U.S. Constitution and – just checked – the Georgia constitution.
It would be claimed that ex post facto provisions only apply to criminal cases. But that’s not what those constitutions say. So Harris would be justified throwing out the registered letter based on the ex post facto law and instead going by one (which I’m sure she would receive from other Georgia authorities) that respects ballot box results.
I’m not understanding this. Ex post facto laws can only be criminal laws. By definition, if it isn’t a criminal law, it cannot be an ex post facto law.
Here’s what the issue would be:
Ex Post Facto Laws
Trumpers might say that Calder v. Bull allows the legislature to wait to see if they like the decision of the voters, and then reverse it. It would be disgraceful if Harris took that view.
Would then, four years from now, the Supreme Court order the President out of the White House due to those ex post facto laws? It’s a risk, but I doubt it. And better to risk it than give up on democracy with no effort to legally preserve it.
Ex post facto means changing the loaw and applying it retroactively, doesn’t it? And the US constitution forbids it.
Are you saying that retroactive laws can be made for civil disputes?
So, there is the tort of Mopery, and the more serious tort of Dopery. Dopery conists of Mopery between midnight and 4AM while wearing a hat. Neither is a crime, they are both civil disputes.
Johnny commits an act of Mopery at 4:05AM on March 15. He was wearing a wig, but not a hat. He hasn’t performed Dopery according to the current definition, so can’t be sued for it.
On March 20 the governor passes a law changing the definition. Dopery is now defined as Mopery between 11PM and 5AM, wearing either a hat or a wig.
So can Johnny now be sued for Dopery?
I guess that is the claim.
And what if Texas says nurses, doctors, and Uber drivers can be sued for having helped women to get abortions before S.B. 8 was even introduced? If they had dared do that, even a conservative Supreme Court might have seen a problem.
And even if they would allow that, I don’t see them kicking a fairly elected President, who got most electoral votes by ballot box decisions, out of he White House.