Not true, really.
The whole idea of jury selection is to find persons who have no agenda in any direction, who are not bringing bias into the proceedings. If it is found that someone lied during voir dire, that’s a basis for a mistrial. No one wants to go through that.
I expect these will be the most carefully chosen juries in history, if we ever get to that point.
IMO, the real difficulty in prosecuting Trump (& his henchmen) is something else.
Trump’s conduct, and the whole Trump phenomenon generally, has been so unprecedented and out-of-left-field that there really aren’t a whole lot of laws written with these types of situations specifically in mind. So what prosecutors would be doing is trying to shoehorn laws written with other scenarios in mind to cover what Trump and his people have been doing. Might be tough going.
What are you referring to, specifically? I don’t see what prosecutors are doing as at all controversial except through a political lens.
There are well-known federal criminal statutes on the books. Trump either violated them or he didn’t. Prosecutors can either make their cases or they can’t. Charges will be brought based on those considerations alone.
Trump is not above the law just because he’s a former president.
Not at all. The laws against soliciting foreign interference in elections (the “perfect” phone call), soliciting vote fraud (the demand to “find” enough votes to flip Georgia), etc are all well-established and clearly applicable in a straightforward manner. The only “tough going” is to triple-check the dotting of every “i” and crossing of every “t”.
Here’s one example: Trump May Be Shielded From Riot Charges by Klan Speech Case (2) (bloomberglaw.com)
I don’t want to go through the list of potential charges, but there are comparable legal hurdles WRT most or all of them.
The argument that Trump is protected by the Brandenberg precedent is rather weak, given the obvious difference in the fact situation (Clarence Brandenburg’s noxious rant was not imminently followed by lawless action; Donald Trump’s noxious rant was).
I don’t know what your legal qualifications are, but the Bloomberg article I cited said that a lot of legal experts (though not all) disagree with you. So I don’t think your post settles the matter, and continue to believe that it’s a very unsettled issue.
Someone (I think it was @Ann_Hedonia probably) wrote a lengthy post several months ago discussing this idea, specifically with reference to the Georgia investigation. The overall point, IIRC, was that Trump’s interference in Georgia was so unlike anything that had ever happened before, that nothing similar had ever been tried in court, and so the prosecutor has no guidance on how to proceed. Part of the investigation, and why it is taking so long, has to do with studying the laws, and how they could be applied, and searching for any prior cases that had any similarity that could be studied.
And I don’t disagree with that. But you – and presumably she – were discussing a state (Georgia) prosecution. You’ll notice I specifically referenced federal criminal statutes. They know how to try RICO cases.
Even the State of Georgia doesn’t seem to be having much trouble working out what statutes would apply. From what I’ve read/heard, the delay is more due to casting a wider net than just Trump, including actors like Giuliani and Lindsey Graham, and witnesses (Raffsenberger, e.g.) who won’t testify without a subpoena. That’s why Fani Willis convened her special grand jury, which won’t sit until early May.