I agree with you, but I’m not seeing that latter bit. Maybe I am just not searching properly.
I’ve seen assumptions that they will go to great lengths to prevent him from being convicted, such as this one:
But I see no justification for it. I don’t see an outcry from state party members the way we’re seeing it at the national level. Again, maybe I’m just failing in my searches. And I’m not in Georgia where I am getting local news.
One other thought that I had today was that, so far as we can tell, the second Grand Jury only heard testimony for one day and decided to go forward with accepting the word of the first Grand Jury.
I believe that they were saying that it would take at least a couple of days to present the case, but they were all ready to go to prosecute a former president and others in a complicated, 40+ charge RICO conspiracy after just one day’s of the presentation.
I have no relevant experience but it feels to me like you can’t get to that point so fast unless you’ve got some people who were in on the matter coming in, under oath, and stating unambiguously, “Yes, I was clearly participating/being asked to participate in a criminal scheme.”
And they would get stopped cold. What are they gonna do? Loot a Walmart in the name of a civil war?
The right thinks they have all the guns. Um, no.
My point was that Republicans in Georgia are probably more afraid of their base than they are of Trump; so while they may be happy for Trump to be brought down, they may have pressure from their constituents to help Him weasel out of this.
So Mark Meadows has already filed a motion to remove this case to a federal court. I haven’t yet seen or read the pleading, but I’m interested to see his basis and how it plays out.
I got that Johnny. Bunch of cowards Like Linsey Graham. They are nothing but wind socks when it comes to the principles they ‘stand’ for.
If you can get past the WaPo paywall, Ruth Marcus has made the case:
Is Georgia’s case against Trump one case too many?
Legally, there is no double jeopardy issue, because the Supreme Court ruled 7-2, in 2019, that state and federal prosecutions on the same facts are constitutional (with Ruth Bader Ginsburg filing one of her final dissents).
My view is that federal/state double jeopardy, however constitutional, doubles the chances of an innocent being convicted. So I’m against it. I have no problem with the Georgia indictment including the eighteen new defendants, but Trump should have been left out. He already was federally indicted for the attempt to reverse the legitimate Georgia election results.
The fewer prosecutions, the less chance Trump is convicted. Since I don’t think anything notably good (or terribly bad) would come from a Trump conviction, I look at other factors, as above.
Got through all 98 pages. That was seriously thorough. I can see why ms Willis went with the Rico charge. It flows very well from nov to jan.
That’s false. There is no such thing as a federal election. We have elected federal positions, yes, but they are filled through local elections. Ruth Marcus is invoking a nonexistent authority in her argument.
(Lest anyone be confused, I’m not quoting PhillyGuy, I am responding to PhillyGuy’s quote of Marcus.)
This was an attack on Georgia’s elections, and they have jurisdiction. There should be a high bar to clear before usurping that authority.
And I think “I want a federal pardon from future president Trump” does not clear that bar.
My two cents…I think they know it came from his account, his phone, and he wanted/was fine with the words conveyed, but they might not know who actually typed the words. Trump personally, or an assistant, etc. It probably means they don’t know one way or the other (which is a small gap in their evidence), or at the very least are being very safe. But I think if you knew he typed the words you’d just say he tweeted it - an example of how you would know is you have a witness who was there and will testify to it. To me, this indicates you don’t have that witness.
Conversely, in the Federal indictment, it will say Trump tweeted something (ie, Trump typed it), and sometimes say he “issued” a tweet (ie, probably meaning they don’t know if he typed it or someone else - a gap in the evidence/no witness, etc).
I haven’t matched the tweets to see if the same tweets are phrased differently between Feds/GA, but it might shed some light on it.
Did he have to go and turn himself in first?
I don’t know if that’s a prerequisite. It might be – or not. I just don’t know.
An educated guess is that so long as you’re a named defendant and charges have been filed with a case number assigned, your lawyer can file a (some?) motion(s) in the case at any time, even if there hasn’t yet been a formal appearance. I can think of a case I worked on in California where something similar was done. Only once, though.
But I think we’d have heard about it if Meadows had surrendered. I’m pretty sure the media have the Fulton County Sheriff’s Department staked out to see who’s shown up for their surrender – and who hasn’t.
LOL, was that helpful? Let’s wait to see if one of our actual lawyers weighs in. 
It’s all over folks:
I am surprised the REPORT will be released next Monday. That’s only 6 days from now. Don’t Trump’s deliverables usually take two weeks?
As the article mentions, why did he wait this long to release this “proof”?
Thanks for this info - I had been wondering about that!
Moderating:
Let’s maybe use this thread to post information that pertains generally across all the various prosecutions:
Thanks.
Sorry…link to that same post in the other thread:
Thanks. 