He thinks he’s untouchable and can pull shit like this:
And so far he’s been completely right about being untouchable. It’s been working for 75 years. There’s no reason to be confident it’ll stop working any time soon. It might quit working, but don’t bet on it.
This is basically the same scenario that already happened on J6 so immediately seems unlikely at least. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if he ends up getting charged in either case.
Doubtful. I think the legal threshold is that the language has to be intended to provoke imminent lawless action or violence (and they have the capability of doing so). Generic & vague threats of violence someday (wink wink, nudge nudge) get to hide behind the banner of free speech.
Dadgummit!
Zero.
He is and he can.
If a crime is committed and no one gets in trouble or wants to arrest the person, was it really a crime? /s
The DA’s general counsel has responded to the letter from the Congressional committee. She sent them a letter, full of legalese and case cites and references to the 10th amendment and state sovereignty and protection of privacy and protection of the law enforcement process and a whole lotta other stuff.
It all boils down to:
“Pound sand.”
Letter embedded in this NPR article:
What letter says v. what trump & co hear:
Personally, I think TFG was baited. Just enough info that it would get to him (re: Tues) and TPTB knew he would run with it. Reaction is gauged on every level, chats, deep web, CIs, and actual physical response/protests.
Charges will roll out based on this intelligence.
Just a hunch. If it was me and I was going to poke several million people, I would like to know what to expect. We only know about the surface chatter, what might be going on in the cellar?
Nevermind rounding up hundreds of loonies, lone wolves (is it a contradiction to pluralize that?) will do, too.
"The FBI and NYPD are investigating a letter containing a death threat and white powder that was mailed to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office is investigating former President Donald Trump, law-enforcement sources told NBC News.
The letter was addressed to Bragg and said, "“ALVIN: I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!!!” the sources said. It contained a small amount of white powder. "
I think this is a possibility, too (welcome back to the forum, btw!).
When Bragg invited Trump to testify, Trump knew Bragg was at the end of his presentation to the grand jury. We should be clear that Alvin Bragg never said if or when Trump would be indicted. That all came from Trump himself.
The minute Trump announced he’d be “arrested” on Tuesday, Bragg decided to indict Trump on any day other than Tuesday. It not only gave law enforcement a quick overview of what reaction to the news they could expect from Trump’s supporters once the indictment was filed, but it also gave them an opportunity to let Trump cry wolf at least once.
I’m pretty sure Trump’s Waco rally is another reason Trump wasn’t indicted over this past week. No sense giving him so much red meat for an audience primed to honk it down.
Late to the party and you’ve already gotten great responses from @Procrustus and @Ann_Hedonia. But just to add to their excellent information, this is how it goes down, at least where I clerked:
If a juror is found to have lied during voir dire prior to the end of case presentation, the juror is excused and replaced with an alternate. The lying juror is sometimes prosecuted for this, but rarely.
If a juror is found to have lied after deliberations have begun but before a verdict is taken and the judge determines that other jurors haven’t been tainted, the lying juror is excused and replaced with an alternate. The liar is prosecuted for perjury at the discretion of the prosecutor.
If a juror is found to have lied after deliberations have begun but before a verdict is taken and the judge determines that other jurors have been tainted, the lying juror is excused and a smart judge will immediately declare a mistrial and start again. Never. Ever. Take. A. Verdict. From. A. Tainted. Jury. (I saw this error happen once in a huge case. It was immensely consequential and tragic.) The juror will probably be prosecuted for perjury.
If a juror is found to have lied after the verdict is taken but the jury still convicts, then the defendant has a great big issue on appeal and will probably win a new trial. The DA may decide to try the case a second time or they may be more inclined to settle, because the appeals process takes time. By the time a new trial is ordered, witnesses may be out of reach of a subpoena, victims much older, everyone’s memories are less clear or maybe critical witnesses have died. It’s an awful situation for a prosecutor.
The most awful situation is if the juror lied during voir dire and as a result, the defendant is found not guilty as a result of those lies. If the verdict has been taken, then yes, double jeopardy attaches and the defendant goes free. The juror will almost certainly be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for perjury. Happily, I never saw this one happen in my career.
But I have experienced some of the other situations. It’s never a good thing when a juror lies to get on a jury for whatever reason.
I see a very strict gag order in Individual One’s near future. Let him violate it once (what are the chances?), and it’ll be home detention for him, with limited access to internet and phone. Trump is giving the judges in his cases every reason to issue tight restrictions on his pre-trial speech.
NY federal judge’s ruling to have an “anonymous jury” decide the April 25 E Jean Carroll civil rape case against Trump for their own protection because in the judge’s words, Trump has in social media attacked jurors, judges and law enforcement, including attacking this week the Stormy Daniel’s hush money coverup grand jury.
And the Manhattan district attorney himself.
Gawd. Wait until the real shit hits the fan.
Thank you Aspenglow. It’s why it’s good (and bad) to be specialized. In my job as a programmer, I just cannot know everything. And when something out of my vision comes along, it’s best to leave it to the pros.
Would a gag order apply to various enablers like Giuliani?
I don’t see how, but it will be tough for those people to act as Trump’s cats’ paws if Trump himself is forbidden to speak about the case to anyone except his attorneys. Because if he’s speaking to Giuliani about it and Giuliani is not his attorney in the case, then Trump is violating his gag order.
You have to give him credit for another first. An “anonymous jury” in a civil case.