Not to turn this into a discussion about Jan. 6, the committee was thoroughly dishonest in how they presented things. Just look at the video they crafted trying to create the impression that it was an attempt at a violent insurrection. Take the case of the guy with the horns, Jacob Chansley, He was sentenced to 41 months. Behold his violence in this video from that day. He has almost constant interaction with police, and zero of it violent in any way. In fact, it was all mutually respectful. For the record: Yes, there were violent individuals that day, and I’m all for making an example of anyone who fought with cops are committed any type of violence/vandalism.
Yet, changes of venue are a thing. Fo instance, Timothy McVeigh’s trial got moved to Denver.
For values of “newly revealed” approaching “part of Tuckums’ propaganda piece”.
Do you think you’re raising some new, novel argument? You’re not. In Trump’s case, it makes no difference. He’s as well known in Denver as he is in D.C. Therefore, no basis to change venue.
It was an attempt at a violent insurrection. You’re spreading extreme right wing propaganda.
Why on earth should this happen?
I’ve always found the strict demarcation between ‘red’ and ‘blue’ curious in the US, and especially so when it comes to the judiciary. Asking for the trial to be moved is just complete BS: The trial and verdict should be held on the merits of the prosecution evidence and defence and NOT on the political affiliations of the sitting judge or the the jurors.
Apropos of nothing …
If we all watch a man kill his wife on live TV, but then Tucker Carlson shows you videotape of the couple’s joyous wedding day, 25 years ago, will (the collective) you believe that the husband is innocent?
I still won’t.
A concerned party-- state AG, citizens group, political party, basically any citizen or group of citizens-- can sue to have him barred from appearing on the ballot under the 14th Amendment. A judge will hear both sides and decide whether or not he can appear on the ballot or not.
There are already several plans under way, one i can remember right now it’s a group called CREW, to block trump from appearing on a many primary ballots as possible. Conviction is not a prerequisite. Just a judgement that he doesn’t meet the eligibility to hold office. I’m sure it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. And there’s a very real chance that they’ll concur and bar him from holding office. I’m not sure it will happen in time, though.
Moderating (guest-modding due to moderator unavailability)
Since this thread seems to be going off the rails due to a hijack, I am temporarily closing this until a P&E mod can properly review it.
Moderating:
Warning for @magellan01
If you start out your post with the words, “Not to turn this into a discussion about Jan. 6…” then you have already turned the discussion off topic and toward the event of January 6th. And you know you’re doing it.
This is a hijack and a warning and a Thread Ban. You will not post in this thread again. You will not hijack any other threads outside of the Pit either.
Additionally: Your posting privileges will be getting discussed in the Modloop.
Mark Meadows wants the Georgia RICO case moved to Federal court because he claims that running a conspiracy to defraud the election was part of his job and therefore should be tried in Federal court. What are his (and others) chances of getting this change of venue approved? Would it affect Jack Smiths pending cases against Trump and his criminal conspirators?
Re: Meadows removal to Federal Court
His chances are fair simply because he has excellent lawyers.
In addition, the bar to removal is low. Factually, he’s arguing all his alleged acts were simply doing chief of staff stuff - setting up phone calls, arranging meetings, etc. - all things a Chief of Staff does for a President.
So, pretty decent chance for Meadows.
Or, because that’s literally what it was.
insurrection
noun
in·sur·rec·tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Moderating:
Let’s drop these responses to the hijack about the January 6th insurrection. The poster you’re responding to is under a thread ban and cannot respond.
His argument does seem fair. But, as a counterargument, I’d note that the Federal government is the product of an agreement by the states. Any Federal officer is, at the end of the day, meant to be working in compliance with the Constitution and for the good of the states.
If we imagine that the Federal government decided to launch nuclear weapons at a particular state, to preserve its own power, that’s clearly a violation of the Federal government’s duty to that particular state. In a case like that, where the nukes didn’t go off or a subgroup was able to stop the launch sequence, the fact that such a perversion happened means that the Federal government has gone off the rails and can’t be trusted to act as a representative of the state. Whatever internal policing system it might have is insufficient to ensure compliance with its duties.
An officer of the Federal government, forwarding the message to nuke Georgia, may just be doing his duty to forward messages but if he knows what the message is and he knows that he’s acting against the Constitution and the rights of the states, then he’s as much an enemy of Georgia as the person who made the decision. The right for Georgia to try and punish him and everyone else involved is a necessary safeguard against a runaway Federal government that wants to usurp its role as a proxy for the interests of the states.
We should also note that elections are a state-level undertaking and that Meadows is being charged for his activities to interfere with and corrupt that undertaking.
Couldn’t Meadows (and Trump) be tried in both state and federal courts at the same time for RICO violations? Can Georgia really be forced not to prosecute him under Georgia laws?
If Meadows gets his case moved to federal court, they’ll still be prosecuting him under Georgia state law. It’s just that the judge will be a federal judge, albeit one located in Atlanta, and the jury will be taken from a larger geographic area. It’s that latter condition that he’s probably going for, since the area includes a number of red counties, not just blue Fulton County.
I said that earlier in the thread. There is no such thing as a federal election. Federal positions are voted on in state elections.
It’s the reason why so many of the election fraud cases that Trump’s legal team tried went to various state courts. It’s why recounts were done at the state level. You can’t declare it’s suddenly a federal issue when it becomes legally convenient.