@Aspenglow : is there a better place for talk of potential Federal Wire Fraud charges against Trump and his SuperPAC? Should this be a new thread? Does one already exist?
Quick addition on that subject:
941. 18 U.S.C. 1343—ELEMENTS OF WIRE FRAUD
The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citingUnited States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.) (the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) (essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant’s knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme.”).
It probably does need its own thread. The issue of Trump funding his legal expenses with PACs and SuperPACs and how he has been abusing the law doesn’t really pertain to this thread or any of the other specific threads relating to Georgia and election subversion. He’s funding all his defense attorneys across many prosecutions.
Do you want to start one? Or would you prefer me to split this discussion into a new thread?
Lawfare gives a legal review of Cannon’s response to the request for a Garcia hearing:
In short: She axed the information that would let her make a ruling on the subject, needlessly, before having the hearing on the subject. And she’s complaining that the Prosecution is using out-of-district information to create new hearings against the defendant - ignoring that the hearing is to ensure that the defendant is getting his 6th Amendment rights.
Assuming that the suggestions that she was echoing statements by the defense on Fox News, the better guess would simply be that she’s a Fox News watcher and is undergoing a pretty extreme case of cognitive dissonance.
What kind of fucking stupid judge follows the lead of the defense lawyers as seen on fucking stupid Fox News?
I think it’s a better look for her if she really is being bribed.
A twofer! In the short run, she’s favoring the defendant, and in the long run, even if the jury convicts him, she’s also giving him grounds for appeal!
In this case, it seems like she is not; she’s favoring a mistrial. The case could be overturned if Cannon declines to allow a Garcia hearing or disallows the DOJ from presenting evidence that the defense’s lawyer is conflicted in the matter.
If she does either of these, after they meet with her, I expect that they’ll need to appeal to a higher court for an injunction (not confident that I’m using the appropriate terms there.)